NU-053-363933-1 ' - ERIC

I0

ED 215 442

AUTHOR.TITLE

INSTITUTION

-SPONS AGENCYPUB DATECONTRACTNOTE

EDRS PRICEDESCRIPTORS

DOCUMENT RESUME

EA 014 589

Bernardin, H. John; And OthersThe Applicability of Organizational EffectivenessModels for School Systems. Final Report.Virginia Polytechnic Inst. and State Univ.,Blacksburg.National Inst. of Education (ED), Washington, DC.

-,-Jun 81

NU-053-363933-1155p.

MF01/PC07 Plus Postage.*Educational Research; EleMentary pecontlaryEducition; Goal Orientation; Measurement Techniques;*Models; Organizational Effectiveness; Outcomes ofEducation. Research Design; Systems Approadh

IDENTIFIERS *School Effectiveness't

. ABSTRACT0

Researchers review the theoretical ana empiricalliterature to investigate how models of organizationll effectivenesscan be applied to the study of school effectiveness in publicelementary and secondary education. The'authors consider winegrouped into two sets: .goil-centered models and systems-orientedmodels. The goal-centered-group comprises the rational-goal,

. management-brobjectivesq functional, and cost-benefit models. Thesystems- oriented concepts include Oe.systems-resources,functional-structural, managerial process, organizational. .

de4elopment, and Likert-ISR models. The authors discuss each model's,

applicability to education, problems in applying the model, and theoutcome variables the model uses to Measure.school effectiveness.'Four probleMs,in,the models are identified: (2) preoccupation with?outcome instead of process variables, (2') use of deficient criteriaof effectiviiless,,(3) lack of empirical support, and W. lack ofclarity regarainginajoavariables..The authors propose aprocess-based mgdAtof effectiveness that incl.udesvariables relatedto ,organizaional 'c imate and human resources.. After discussing pastresearch de/fps for investigating school effettiveness, they suggesta research design, that considers issues of data aggregation, sample

.size,.' and the'-`validity of odtcome-criteria.-(Aiithor/RW).

s.

'

-Je

0

***********i****s*************************)**************************** ' Reproductions supplied by EDRS are tie best that can be made *

. . , from the' original dOcument. *e.4**************,****************************.****.******************1

.

. .

6

,

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATIONNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF EDUCATION

EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES.INFORMATIONCENTER (ERIC{

This document has been reproduced asreceived from the person or organizationoriginating It.

0 Minor changes have been made to improvereproduction quality.

Points of view or opavores'stated in this docu-ment do not necessanly represent official NIEposincri or policy

FINAL REPORT'

The Applicability of Organizational Effectiveness Models,

for School Systems1-,

H. John Bernard

Barry J. Riegelhaupt.

Lea E4 Curry.

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University

Contract 053-363933-1 .

National Institute of Education

itshington, D.C.

Running Head: School. Effectiveness

U.S.

o.

-junta, 1981

0

. if

:

1

r

Table' of Contents

I

I

1,

Abstract. . . .. i*. .- , .

Project PurposeI

nOrganUational Effectiveness -*An Introduction; '. .

,

Goal - Centared Models i

Rational-Goal Model. . . . .

Performance Contracting

Msnagement-by-!Objectives

I,,..

Standardized Teat 'Scores as 'Criteria.

The Functional 11°41' ; , ,

J - A.

Goal Attaineni"Rcaling

3

r1

.

1

/

3

:

.

..7

104

... . . /13 5

: 16

24

36

:

0 . 37

48-

5d. 4

Human Resouroe Accounti6

Jr ..,.

.I ".

53

I

The 'Obit,-Benefit

Systems ModelsI y

;Thh Systems Resource67

,.0

. Th'e Punctio n'al-StruCture,MO'dea,. , . 73

,

The Managerial Process Model 81

._ r The AfganizatAonaloDevelopmedi Mbdels. . A 90,

) The Ukert-ISR Model '_ , . . . 95

, (:bnclusion -; The Choice of 'a Model for t Zhobl Systems..

98.....,

4 Human Easouroe Process Variables 'in the Process Model, ....'°: . 101.

.

\ 'n ,* : ;'"

1 Research Designs i.Studies i'or School effectivenes .

104. ,.. \

References- , 4 i is

115

'Tables O.

-4 I

k

. /

School Effectiveness

1 .

1.1 The Applicability of Organizational Effectiveness Models

v

:for School Systems

'

Abstract

ti

The purpose of this project was to consider the appfLicability of

major models of organizational effectiveness for school systeds and to.

.

consider research On school systems ill the context of th- models..

Eight models were reviewed (i.e., rational;-goal, maims nt-by -obje4T. .

.

tives, fitpctipnal, cost-benefit, Systems-resource, functiona14-struc-..

1 -

.

...

.:_ tures, managerial. process, organiXationaldeveIopment). While all ''.,.....,:

, models had features that were applicabXe to scheql systeL(all also

. r"-- 4 - ., 't . e 4 '

' 7-4

_..-had major flaws as models to guide fntureresearch on school e2fet-. . .'

tiveness. The most common problems character izing the models were:0,

1) a_preiccupation-with-outcomeLmeasurement with little-considerationA 4 ,.

.

of "process" variables that lead to outcomes' (e.g., manageMent.4),-, / - , ,

objects, cost-benefit); 2) the use of contaminated and deficient' .

criteria such as pupikgain scores on normrteference4,ability testsor,

,.. ,

. . . .

measures Of4obosatisfaction (e.g., functional, ststems-resourde, organ:Li'

zational:development, Ilkeri-ISR); 3) a lack of .empirical -support fOr

the model (e.g., managerial process, functionst-structures, functioal);,

aid 4) a 14ek Of clarity regardink major variables related to the model,

2 , ,

(e.g., functional-structures,.systemi-resource). Themanagement-by-

F

Y

6.

se.

School Effectiveness.

1,

objectives pad the Likert-ISIOodels were supported bysome.empirical.i /

evidence within schoOl:systems,butall studies involved deficient

e.'

criteria. A "process"model of effectiveness model is proposeeiddich

1 tikes. features from several models, both.goal and systems- oriented.

Organizational climate variables are included ia.the model\along with-. .

s".

compopnts of the human resource selection, training, and evaluation,

.,processes for school systems. After critiiul.ng research` designs used

. . A .., . tin'the,past.to investigate schodileffectiveness, a design is proposed

.,

twould'bemore sensitive to the\most salient factors related tor \ . A

t1,iejle.ss.-

. ,N

. \N

.t

9

C

. r

4' - 1.-1

....

.

p

V

1r

ot

.

.; VV

O

4,

School Effectiveness'

3

The applicabitity of Organizational Effectiveness Models

for School Systems..--,t.( ... .

.

.c.

.,

.. .

.

The purpose of this report is to constdeithe appliCability of they

..

.A0 i-, . - ,

majot:mbdeIs of organizational effectiveness foatischoos7stems.pecifi-.

4

/

cally,.the following models of 'effectiveness will be discussed: rational-,.

goal; 2.' management-by=objeCtives; 3. functional; 4. .cost-benefit;'5. ,sys-,

. 61

,,

temszresource; 6f.: functional- structures; 7. managerial process;Al organi-( 1

zational development; and 9.' Likert -ISR.,. / '

, ..rt

1.

When considering the apprOPritteness of the models for school systems,

some difficulty waseneountered in-classifying partiCular educational re-,-

,

search.as representative of one pariicfilar model:. For example, research on'p

.performance contacting wiil-beailcussed.in the context of.tSe rational- ,

. .- .ft' . '

gtafmodel'of effectiveness though argument; could bd made.for its applica7, .

.. ''. .

bility to other goal-centeredJngdelssuch as.managemdnt=by-objectiveshe.'..,_

;

, .,kincipal tasbn fob, this dif4Culty lies yid!, the conceptual similarities -:

k ,.P 1.

of the models.(e.g., functiiona; and functional- structures; rational-

----goal and60; systems-kesourci and copt-benefii)..c.-

ticonsidered1 Also,,ponsidered in the discussiok df models are the various outcome- ..-

.. .

, .-

'variablet that aremOst often -'used to erationaliti the construct of.organ1-

.

zational-effectilieness. The appropriateness of these operatiOnalizations for..

, -, ,

educational systems will be discussed. It was the original inteneof_this-, - , .. , . '..' . -. . -

pro ect.tp, evaluatecriteria ofschool system 'effe4tPireness'in order to'., , .: .. -

'.arrive at-&set'of reComminddd strategies for-data collection. However, t. , .: .,

- 1 -e,.1. 1- .. '

,-review of the 4iterature In edncition.reneaied'a paucity of detailed dia0s;r:, , p

, . .,.. .

sign' of criteria other than student performance on ii/Iity or achieyemelits:;! . / ,

,

., 4*. e

; . '

6"' V r.

..\-.

.

. .

t .

1School' Effectiveness

4

tests (e.g.,Madaus,,Airasian,- & Kellaghin,_1980). There will then be only.e

limited,discussion of the criteria in terms of psychometric ism," such as /. ,

m ,,

.

reliability, freedom from bias or contaminatIon,,and validity. -,. ,

Variablesfrom the edueptiadal-literature that havebeen classified

..iato one of the effectiveness models will4be considered where sufficient

data or discussion are available. For exampler-the use of student scores

on: achievement ability tests as results data in. an MBO model' will he die=

cussed. Additionally, the appropriateness of

;bailable to the researcher in education4wili

1 .

.

the various units of.analysis

beconsidered via divis the

models ofbeffectiveaess.

' Bidwell (196i) discussed the paucity.of,systematic research. on schools,e

as orgabizatiOts. There has been as increase recently in'Ampitical research

) on the functiOnal,,structural, add technolbgical processes related to ,edu-.

rational systems . unfortunately,, research on school.effectiVenesi, like its,

counterpdrt in the literature on oiganizational_effectiveness ax, large, has

.,.

beep largely fragmatary, discontinuous, and unidirectional. School_effec.-_ .

o tiveneie is- almost 4.1ways viewed th_pmads4of one-criterion and that;.

.

friquenay'is some measure of studeht outcomes. While there has been a.,

t, ...

plethOra of positiOn papers s portinvprograms of accountability, performancZ

contracting, program evaluation, competency- based assessment, performance

Objectives, and organizational change, well 4trolled empirical research,

'ot, models and/oilsrthe measurement of effectImenles is rare. This may,f3e due

to the fact that early large scale projects relating school characteristics

outcome measures bOte little fruit. Inone of the first major *arks in

this area,Caaeman, Campbell, kobson,McPartlind, Mood, Weinfeld, and York

1

r')

4

.-School. Effectiveness

5?

(1966) concluded that "schools bring little influence to bear on a child's

.achievement that is'independent of his background and social context" (1966,

p. 325): Subsequent reanalysis. of the Coleman et al..data and other similar

Studies haVe arrived at essentially the Same conclusion (e.g., Jencks, Smith,

Acland, Bane, Cohen, Giatis, Heyns, & MiChelson, 1972; hosteller & Moynihan,

1972; ostlethwaite, 1975;:Smith, 1972). Research on educational 4.aterven-.

tiaas ch as Protect Talent, Follow Through, and'Head Start is also in -line

.-with the statement above by Coleman et al: (1966 (e.g., Averch, Carroll,

Donaldson, Kiesling, & Pincis, 1972; Jencks & Brown, 1975; Madaus.et al.,

1980). There are some studies dist have "found school characteristicst

3accounting for significant:portions of the variance in student outcomes (e.g.,,. .

'` Bidwell &.1Catsarda, 1975;.Ciriteili, Evans, & Schiller, 1970; Hanushek, 1977;-

Mayeske, Cohen, Wisler, Okada, Beaton,'Proshek, Weinfeld, &-Tabler, 1972;a

'Mitchell, 1977):-.However, criticisms of many of-these findings have been made1

Statistics' or methodological lads Aiwin, 1976; Cronbach, r976;

D tta, 3206, Hannan, 1971; kannaa, Freeman, & Meyer, 1976; Lau; 1977; Madow,.

,1969; Young & Erbring,.1976

In summarizing the long list of:point-counterpOint.articles, Madaus et

. al. (1980) noted-that "iasigts.ine; the ichaolipg process itself and the,. ,..-. , v

we in Which*that procesiis.best viewed.'werwaftep. slow to Much\\'. . - .

of the debate has overlookedlguestions atout:sChooidag and school effective-.

-, ...40

neSs _and the most Woeful manner in which eatanceptualize.these'concepts".,

..... .

.-.

, . a-0 . .ft .

(1980, p." 44). Hopefully," one or mare ofthemodels to' be dtscusged on the.V,

..following page* can serve as a frameyork-fa this°conceptualization.,

Before disCuising the appropriateness of the models of organ,., . .

-.7

*. :"am

4

Sc12ool Effectiveness

zational effectiveness for school systems, it is first necessary to put this,4#

research iosproper fbcus regarding two major issues. The first issue has to..(

do with the types of schools to be considered in the context of the.models

ofeffectiveneis. Th e are great differences between the various institu-doe

tions that come to min when th4n1E4ng of schools in general. The discussions

to follow will focus on the appropriateness of the effectiveness models for.

. s

public *elementary and secondarymainstream school systems.. The.inclusionOti

private schools or colleges and universities would necessitate major critical

diverstonn from the more generic characteristics of school systems. However;, .

T

-wtere empirical research seems particularly pertinent, some distussion of

other educational systems will be made (e.g.,the use of cpst-benefit analysis.e

foespecial educational programs; college Student evaluation-es_criteria for.

teacher effectiveness). Also, an excellent discussion, of organizational .

effectiveness for higher edudation can be found elsewhere (Cameron, 1978).

The second issue has to do with the comprehensiveness of the discussion

p. 1, . ,

.

.,

of ma'. topicafaress such as accountability, performance contracting,.

'Criterion-referenced instructiaa,,instructional or performance objectives,

program evaluatiOn, cost aCcounting,.comPetency-based programming, teaChe.

evaluation, educatiOnal assessment, 4ifferentiated staffing, PPBS,PERT,.

a host of others. It Was never the purpose of this project to

review all of this literatUre that is obviously at least tangentially re-,

lited tO aUbiquitous construct suCh'as organizational effectiveness.

Either the focus in the discussion to follow is on the appliCability of the

various models and criteria of effectiveness. Where research related.to, .

accountability, contracting, etc, fits Within One of the models, it will4be

rAi 9

I

)

.1

.14School Effectiveness

. .

7

included. An'atteMpt has been made to incorporate most of the better re-

searchsearch and .discussi on of such topics intothe paper. ,*

/

Discussions ofihe various/models will differ substantially in length

due either 'to the approprrateniss/inapproliriateness of the moderior school.

,

systems and/or the extent to which resgarch or discussion in educational

literature indicates support/nonSupport for the model. Also, there may be

ldnger discussions of nob- educational research for some models wbeh that

research is considered pertinent and there'is little educational research. 4

available (e.g.4 the managerial proces# model)._ -

.3 ..

,

This report will begin with-a brief introduction to the concept.of)

.u

"organizational effectiveness" and point out some of the difficulties with. ,,

measuring it. The various models of effectiSenesa will then be clustefed-

_

-and discussed within either a goal7centered or "systems" perspective on ef-

fedtimeness., TO thaend, the authors are indebte&to'the excellent work.

of Campbell, Bownas, Petersbn, and Dunnette (1974) who summarized and cri- .

tiqued the plethora o,research on effectivenesvup through 1973: Research

aid discussion.sUbsequent to this date will be the focus of this report...

Organizational Effectiveness -An Introduction.

. There is a notable lack of cOnseneus as .p3-what the construct of or-.

ganizational effectiveness actually means (Steers, 1976). Penn As (1976)j

notesthat the literature is rather diverse in its preulailing.definitIOns

J of organizational effectiveness.` The research.and.debate is,kfor.themost

.part, noncumulative and disjointed. There is agre-9ement; hat organizational

effectiveness is-a desirable state of affairs, but the is.concomitantly;

a lick of firm theoretical basis for measuzement of the construct.' Ghorpade.

O


8

(1971). states that a researcher undertaking a'study of organizational effec-

tiveness is faCed wiLtwO major hundlts atthe'theoretical level: (a).

6

.

.there does:not seem to be a substantive, systematic body of knowledge based

on hard evidence7about the functioning, of organizations; and (b) there does

not seem to.bea universally accepted theoretical ;framework for approaching,

the study of organizations. Unfortunately, thisehurdles also apply to re-_

search in education,. If organizatiOnaitheory is itself still is such a

confused state of affairs',. it is small wonder that. studies of the'effective-,--

ness of these structures are in such turmoil.. .

This state of turmoil is clearly illustrated by the multiplicity of.

criteria that have been used to assess organizational effectiveness. A. .

large and often conflicting array of data has been'amaised ind purported

to demonstrate effectivengss. Campbell et at. (1974) note 26 separate cri-

.terit that have been used at one timeor another in the. literature. They

conclude-that a better way. -to Link of organizational effectiveness is as

an underlying construct Whch.has no direct operational der tion, but,

lfwhich constitutes a model or theory oewhat.organizationa effectieness is.

Tie ffinction of anch'a model would be to identify the va ables of interest

and tell us' how they are relatea._

In part due to the lack of agreement concerning'th Criteria of organi-

effectiveness, it is°no surprise that there is also conflict con-__

ceruing the'best methods fdk itssattainment. Steers (1976) notes that:a. ...... ,.

.

major reason for this lack of agreement is.the parochial view that many rer

searchers take toward the construct. Effectiveness is; Often viewed in terms .

, of a single criterion 'that is person on situation speCific (e.g., profit",

O

1 I .

4

,

J

.

School EffIctiveness

9

. -

-efficiency, output,'etc.), even though organizations are knowiCtyjoicalle to_

.. ..

.

'pursue multiple goals that are modifiedacross personnel; technologies,

socid-cultural en vironments,and a hoit,of other factors. Yet, most often,

.the attainment or failure to attain one goil is treated as.adepen2ent riar7\ '- . . .

. iable and'the'larger Conteft'is ignored. Aswillbe discussed below, re -i6... .

search on school sy&teme effectiveness .can also,'''for the most.part,.be

characterized as parochial in nature.

A second reason for the lack of agreement concerning effectiveness4-

attainment is the' ambiguity of the concept'itself. Many. models oforgaai-ik

zational effectiveness are somewhat esoteric and the-criteria are difficult

to operationilize.. Both the models and the criteria may bek

person...tievpoiht

specific., dependent mainly oh the frame of reference of the evaluator.

4teeri,(1,977); for example, reViewed 17 different studies'encompassing as

Many gifferent mdltivariate-models of. organizational effectiveness. He'

'found. that only, one criterion ' (adaptability- flexibility) was mentioned -in=.

. more than half of the models. Thus, there'll little agreement about the

conceptualization or measurement of organizational effectiveness. In edu-. .

there is a general consensus that-some measure. of.

the=mosapproptetate=L.Hriteriodtrwhitht-datsiirs--effecti*-1 . ,

_

Student outcome is .4<-

nese,. However,

there is 'also,a1 consensus that all such measures haie problems (Wens at4 ....

- Ixt.,'1980). 'The literature On organizational effectiveness if most often.-

.

divided theoretiltaliy into two major perspectives. While the nomenclatuie,', .

1 .,

varies somewhat, the.pcolf most popular labels for those perspectives are their

goal-centered and the systems view (Campbell et al., t974; GhOrpade, 1971).. -

The ftamework far the discussion of the specificlmodels within'these

12

,

I

'4-

-

I

School Effectiveness ,

10

two perspectives is as follows: 1) agendral discussion of the meaning of

.)the model, and definitions of all pertinent -terms; a consideration of the

applicability of the model for school. systems; 3) a review if pertinent re-- .

search in education; add 4) (where possiUe), a discUssion bf implications

f the model for the practitioner in education.

Goal-centered Models

The goal-centered models make the assumption that the organization is

id:the handi of a set bf rational decision nial4rs who have in mind a set of

goals, that are reasonably explicit and for which the organization mobilizes

its resources (Campbell'et al., 1974). It is further assuated that the goals

are reasonably well defined and few enough in.number to be manageable.

Given this, it should be possible to develop a strategy for the attainment

of maximization of these goals. 'Effectivenesncriteria would then be defined

in terms of-the degree to which stated goals were achieved, or as Price

(1972) views.it,'the degree to which the organization achieves ideal end-

.

Steers (1976) notes.t*o basic variations of g1-centered theories that

states. .

dichotomize the field. The model proposed by Thompson and McEwen (1958) id-,

:corporates those fa tors external to the ownization that can influence

the selection and modification, of organizational objec4ilys. This model

focuses be,therelationshO bet4eedenn organization and its environment in.4.,

..

. \.__. 5 .

reference tOrthe balance of power. The second notiel, by Cyert and March., .

(1964), deals prinlipellyCwith internal forc6. It focuses on the internal, .

determininia of goals by-coslitions of individuals and gps. .Thisdichot-,., .

, w"-i' .

OW of focus betlieltd, internal and external .holcisi true,1

many of the .models

5


11

'.to follow. Some models, however, (e.g., MBO, cost-benefit) are influenced

by both internal and external forces in the selection and modification of*.

objectives. (:

The goal-centered approach views organizations primarily as rational devicesII.

for the attainment of certain 'objectives. Goals answer the questicin oflhere the

organization is going.- Steers (1976),. however, questions this eimple,concep-

tmalization of goals on several logical and methodological grounds. For

example, one can ask questions such as whose goals are we talking about? In the

context of school systems, is the reference group teachers, students, par-4

eats, adminitrators, or whom? There-is alio the problem of multiple and

.i4ten conflicting goals. Who decides which goals are more important, and

:haw is this decision made? Are they system-wide*goals or. strictly,school

specific vials? What is the timcrefilince? Given limited resources, what

will the organization do? Thus, accordingi.to Steers (1976), the simple de=

finitiami of goals that are usually given may be useful on a fairly abstrIct

level,-but they lack the precision necessary for pxamining empirically the

relationship between organizational goals and organizational.effectiveness.'

Yuchtman and Seashore (1967) agree, stating that goals as ideal end states

do not offer the possibility of realistic assessment.

At this point a distinction must be made between the variods types of

goals-toward w4ich an organization may be striving. The most common dis-

' tinction Is that of official, operative, and operational goali (Ferr6w$

1961). Official goals are formal statements of purpose,made by executive4

management concerning the nature of an-organizailon's mission. These goals

areI ,

ally vague, aspirational, and set:in an infinite timetable.

51,

9

t)O

School. Effectiveness

.

Operative'perativegoals represent the real. intentions of ea'orianization; that is,t.

What an orientation is really trying to accomplish regaAless of vat it

sari; it is tryiag to dd,' Operational goals are goals for which_there are

agreed-upon criteria orrevaluating the degree to Which an organization's

activities .are contribu g to goal attainment; Goal attainment here is. .

. -

operationally 'defined. in .arms. of unt production, profit levels, etc.

S teert,(1974 and Reiman (1975) both agree-that assessment of organizational'e4

effectiveness must focus on operative goals. If it does not, thinti;e'con--`e

dept of a.ioal-directed .system has little meaning.

One shortcoming of the goal approach is that some goals arise as cul-

tmral entities, derived from societies! expectations and demands, and thus

- are not applicable for,anilysis. Of Particular importance here is the con-.4

cept of-goal :relay:quack Although goals maybe important to some segments of, .

.

.

the organization (and, by iipIldation,Ito some segments 'of society) they may, .

1 ,

not be to others. In fact, .sodie segments of the organization may attain

their goals:at the expense of other segments. Seldom, however, do we examine

th is multi-goil,envimmtmerai within which the organization operates,.(Kirchhoff,

1977), °

second sboitcoming is that the approach has limited-usefulness,for. . '

studies of comparative effectiveness across organizations. If we accept,. ,.

the notion that the only valid indicators of an organization's effectiveness

are it's 9perati7e pals, then measures of effectiveness will be 44fferent0' 4* .

.

, -for each organization. Although this approach may have practical utility

for any giyen case, it would be prohibitively restricting .for any theory of

organizational effectiveness.

_

,

sI School Effectiveness

i

, . . 13.

.

. ,..

, ,- .,

. ...,

Indeed, Price .(1972) summarizes his review.of goal approaches by cOn-.

eluding that they have not successfully measuled organizational effectiveness.

Kirchhoff (1977) notes further that current empirical methodologies do not

adequately express the complexity of effectiveness measurement.

A third issue concerns the actual measureme t of goals (i.e., the

"criterion problem"). This issue will be examited in depth in the manage-'

lent-by-objectives section.

Presented IA Table: 1.are four goal-oriented models of organizational

effectiveness. We pow turn to a iscussiod of the applicability of each of,

'those models, as a vehicIeby which to assess a school system's effecilve-..

The Rational -Goal Model

__The_lasis of the rational -goal approach is the Weberian concept of

functional rationality.'AccorAing to-Weber (M, Steers, /976), modern of,

Unsert Table-lsabout beii"1104

are charaoteiizedby'neiworks of roles,. divisions of labor, and

_.hierarchiesof activities bureaucracy).. When an organiza-

tion is effeetiVii:every element has a difined role or fuaction that is logi-,

-cally related*., The organization is, valuated}}role

those goals that.

were established with thOsethat were actually accomplished. Thus, an effec.-

-tiVe,oiganization ii one -that has achieved. the goals: that it has set for

itself (e.g.,..jtzioni, 1964; Perrow, 1961). Criteria are established based.

on either the fotmal'orinformal (operative) goals of the organization. -.

SchocilEffectivenesse14

.

discussiOn of elementary education, Lortie (1969) maintains: that

\Bcial'statepents are generally'siated at the level of the school board and'- c.

Aire to ,their generafnature, it is difficult to define criteriayich would4

determine the. extant to which the goals'were successful* achieved. Dorn-,

busch and !Scott (1975),' however, argue that the goals at the elementary,

level could be far 'more explicit than goals established, for example, at

instutions of higher education. Cameron (1978), on the other hand, "shows

empirically that "dominant coalitions" from six utioias of higher-edu-.

4.cation can agree for the most part on a list Limporant criteria on'whiCh. ,o

o assess effectiveness. It may very well be. that disagreement., howevei, would4 -

flourish as soon as any detalltwas required for the ambiguous criteria re-

ported by Cameron (1978) such as 'atudent educational.satisfaction", "academic

deialoilment", or "professional development and quality of the faculty".

Nuierouscriticisashave been levied against the,rapional-gOal model of.4" .

. . .

.

,

-effectiveness. Blau and Scott-(1962) and Scriven (1961 state that there is

a preoccupation with formal...or Official goals to ,.the ex usion.of multiple

constituencies affecting organizations with their informal, operative goals.

While this criticism may have been true of goal- oriented, educational models

in the past, there has been a substantial increase in consideration.of

,

operative, and. more quantitative goals of school systems frammelevant con-4

stituencies (e.g., Nash, 1970). Thus, whereaegoal4 may have'been defined

earlier'as, for example, "to impart skills in languages and mathematics"/

-(cf: Beshers, .1972), recently the method of assessing perforthances in these

areas and the'extent of improvement are very often made explicit (e.g..

Barr°, 1910). The increased interest in performance contracting is a

*

I

S

<

sschooi,Effectivedess'.

'15

reflection of this greater concern for actbal performance measurement to

assess gofil achievement. One 'of the better examples of an educatioh al.study,

to assess operative goals'is the

Jag sponsored bir the Office of

implications in assessing the ra

"large scale project on performance. contract-1

conomi ortuni in 1970-71. Due to its..o

oral -goal model of,effectiveness; dis-

cussion of thii study,mill foil shortly.

A second common criticism

a general neglect.of the conflic

iihe rational-goal model is that there is

or,potential lict of many organiza-

tional goals (e.g., Rice, 1963). This criticism is quite appropriate for

school systems given the multiple constituencies concerned with their effec-

tiveness-(e.g.,politicians,'communitY leaders, teachers, parents, students).

The goals of these various constituencies will certainly conflict at times;-

.-as, for example, in considerations of,teachersalary and absenteeism policy,

A

budget factors, or. extracurricular activities.

Athirdoriticism.of the rational-goal theory is that the interactions -.

of an organization's goals with'ihe goals of the affected environmentAare not

taken into dOnsideratida (Lalmmince& Lorsch, 1969). ,Thus, for example,- ,

operatigoals of the school system such as "equal employment opportunity"I

-

may be influnOed by the informal goals of the organization's boundary'in-,

stitntiops such al.thee local or regional affirmative actIA. office or the

Atacitl make-up of the School board. Also, environmental factors such as

the sOdio-economic.eharacteristics'of the school comoiunity.can have a'signi-

ficaitimpact_on the-types of goals'snd the measurement strategies established

to assess goal-attainment (Anerch,et al., 1972).,

A final criticism of the model.i,s.that it treats goals.ad.static in an .

.ta

I,

Sdhool Effectiveness\

-N.\. 16

environment that realistically should make all:opeiaiive-goals -dynamic '

(Pfeffer, 1977). ,Although the formal goals of a. school syhtem may be

'constants,'the.operative goals may be affected bycontextual factors. For

example, the operative vals-of-teachers could change significantly as a.-)

function of some budgetary decision (e.g., working to contract due to low

-or no pay raises).Ni

Performance Contracting. With performance contracting, the focus is

on to school systims', teachers', or outsidi agencies ability to achieve

',certain- explicit goals related to education outcomes (Grmlich & Koshel,

1975). Thus, goalsare formalized in terms of end states, a-time reference,

and "hard",,41teria (e.g.; average scores at or above a certain score on a

specific test or tests). For example, in 1969, Dorsett Educational System

contracted with two school systems (in Texarkana, Arkansas and,fherty-

Eylau, Texas) to teach certain academically deficient high school. students.

The performance contract explicitly stated that Dorsett would-belt:did only%

fOrVose students who attained a specific level of profidiency. The pro-i

..

.......... .

t grawinvolv d more thah 200 students, and seemed to work amazingly' well,

exciting many in educational circles to the possibilities of performance

contracting as a way o,making schools more accountable for the outcome of .

their 'students. However, themelidity of, test score gains -4n- Texarkana has '

4.-4...-since been questioned. Dorsett has been-Charged with contamination of the

, .

'04,,

, results-by teaching sptcific items-qh.the test ttudent0Educational, , I .

1

VRedearch Service, 1974).40.

As a result of the.Dorsett siudy, the Office of Economic Opportunity,.. .,

.-.4

(0E0) didided to perform a national experiment designed to assess the

.

' . .

I 9

.

.1',#

4

advantageshand disadvantages, as well as the prhcticality of per

,A 9

$Chocil Etiecii4enees

17

I

.0

,formance,contracting for use with academically deficient children.0.11

The evaluatlaninitruient psed was the Metr4alitan.Achievement Test,

0)a battery of tests-including reading and mathematical components.

of an oltiginalsatpleof 24,000 students; 81 perctnt-actually farti-, \

cipited in the entire program with only 61 percenttaving scores whib

Could be evaluated. There were slight differences.between,the number of0 .

students in the control and'ekpeiimental group who were both full time t.. .

students-and took pre- and post -tests -(74, percent of the control group as

// comparedto,77 percent of the experimental group).

,(1975) stated thlt these differences "suggest thatb a

tian\could be responsible for a small bias against

o

Gramlich aad Koshel

a disproportionate attii-

e dtndents In the 7-

peilment, especially if tIe experimedt was 'itself responsible for the lower

attrition in ,that group" (p. 32) .'

The differences between the various,subtests in both experimental and

-..

.

control grodOe were relatively small, showing that the studentS did not demon-.

.4

strate a'tendencT to do better in one area than any ot#er.,' One interesting

,

....difference found was that in the subjects not taught by the contractors...

(spelling, vprd analysis': etc.) the experimentalstUdents did slightly worse.

,One reason for these differences might have been that studenti in the ex-

perlmental'sroup,may'have missed some instruction in. other subjects due to. ,

ineffective incilaphaiard scheduling or other disruptions. Otheriinterpre-.

tations, of course, are possible. For exalpi4 teacher bias may have affected

the result's. The, teachers cohld possibly have been, biased against those

students lathe experiMental group, thereby giving:them less attention.

O

41%:-`0,3,06

.

!

3

7

could' easily be the oast', for the

viewed as a threat by many teachers.

.

-

tho4eachers were indeed incooperative and.sometimes hostile in regarckto

School Effectiveness4

t

18

idea of igrformance contracting was

e s,

As willbe discilssed later,:many oflar

-,s....,, .

7---, T Nf hthe progra,.,-,(

,..

4 4. ,,

Since in most cases achievemint gains were positively related to the. .

.

t:..

',pretest scores, and since these scores _ were not equivalent in-experimental

and control groups (the experimental grOup,was usually lower) these gains',

', '1 )

.

were adjusted. The. adjusted mean gains are perMapi the best measures.of the,

actual differenCes'betWeen the twogroups. "They show stags cally'signi-

ficant experimental gains four times,%one statistically ficanf exp,eri-

-mental loss, and very email gains -or losses in the other seven cases':

(Grasslich & Koshel, 1975, p. 39). .

f

Overall, the adjusted dip,erimentaljainaayeiageOdut 0.04 gradet

equivalent unite, a seven percent gain over that of studeny-im the control

group,- These resdlis were disappointing to those involved, and forced 0E0

to conclude that-performance contracting proved no More effective than re'

gulag teaching. method:4 in improving the level of academically deficient'

students.

'Althdugh 0E0!s fifidings did not supporperfOrMadce.contracting, manys.

brie pointed to numerous flaws in the design, procedure, aid-implementation

of the experiment..,The first of these' flaws had to,d; with the' lack of-

time- iSpent organizing' the xperiment

Alio criticized was the length of the experiment. It has been suggested

-.._ 4that onevyear is .not enough time to elaluate:,the amount .of gunge:Performance

.. ) A. ; I, x -,

./contracting is_capa ble Of produing. Indeed, accoidinutos

some, this lack of.

0

t

;

r

'1/40.'3-. A

a

. -

1 04..

°I


44

19,

'-

,- . ..

results any:.

. et ensive ;valuation prevents the t fro* demonstrating condlusive, .., ..

. . i . -..

evidence whatsoever. 'Thus, "the.-0E0 experiment showed that private enter- ., ..0,

prise.could not provide existing schools a royal roadto educational quiiity.1 .' .* .

O within one year .". .Beyond. thia.conclusionlowevet, the' experiment 11,.

- .

,

,",' 4

many questions unanswered" ,(Carpenter- Huffman pt al.,. 1974, n. 52).

A thitd time-related problei deals with.-Iliffeterrtial amounts of time

.ftdevoted to.explrimentl and.control voupsa,

diffetences in mean achievedent gains blpwee

.0ItylvIdsiom-then that the

n experimental and controlts

gionps didnotdepict a-very, accurate account' of the relative merits of

formance'contracting. The'experimat',../aula.heveheen much more informative

o

, ,

had this time.elethent been held constant.. ty o

. . ..A more serlous.criticiamof the 0E0 experiment has to do with 'the pro:-

.

tedure 'tor designating,schOols as "expetidental!! ot,""control." "gs' Previously.

...

,stated, this status was determined on the basis of,acadeMic need. Cause-1-

quently, the control and experimental gioups were eknot evenly patched 'in terms

of ability. This uneven matthing.con 1.tu es a seriouss flaw in the-.

experi-st

-dental design. In particirar, a design-withmoneOivlent.groups,runs

,risk of maturation 'effects being'Imisiaken. focthe effect of the variable.- z F

thus affecting the internal valici.Itykdriheiexperiment. The external

. . ,

dity is also thieaten d bythe effect of the interaction of testing and the.

/ ,.

,04,--:-__::,'treatment. If eith r of the groupp are selected for,their extreme scores,. -

,.,the-differencc it the d4reiof shift.frod pre-tovost-test may be a product

,

O.f.,regresSiOn rather than the effect of the, experimental condition, Indeed,,

"1 in theirstatisticel-analydis of exptiment,-Orfinkel and.,

l

.. 0.-. ,.. ,:

, 4!= o ...,,-.Caution that "one must be extitemelik!caref4in..interprAing experimental

. \,ii,, - , , °-

;?!,s4 '... .

'. ..

...

S.

:

- .

IL..

.

. .

. results if there is some indication chat the'sample is imperfectly matched"..-

(Ga'rfinkel 5,'Gramlich, 1973, p. 284)..7 ...

- Anot4, area of great Concern. wiih'respect to the.experiment involves-. .

r-

SchOol'Effectiveness

'T

't 20

4

perhaps the major Problem with tationalmgoal programs such as contracting,. ,

-namely, that of the criteria that are used.. The contracted firms questioned

.'the- content validity ofihe criteria, claibing that the Metropolitan Achieve-

heat Test did not sufficiently maich'the content of their program. °indeed,

in addition to the firths, manyhave'questioned the use of standardized

achievethent tests to assess priaent capabilities of a student jsee for

example,-Brophy:.1973; 11141,1964; Soap& Soar, 1977,), While some .of this

discussion willbe reserved for the.MBO section of the paper,, a comment musta

., be 'offered on the suitability of atandardized,.norm-referenced tests as

,criteria in.contracting and other accountability programs.. Yfievalidity, .=.. .

re.11.2bility:, and relevance 'of such ,.tests for use as criteria of school or.

.

teacher,effectiveness has/been questioned by numerous Vriters 444.; Airasian

. . _..

I& Wails; 1976; Colman, 1f7; Kellighan, 1977; Levy, 1973;iadaud, Kellaghan;

Rakow, & King, 1979; McClelland, 1973). Madaus et al. (1979) ask the rile!. ,

.... _..

torical.question whether verbal ability tests such as those frequently used,

in contracting or voucher programs adequately sample the content domain that 11. .:

is attempt to teach. Coolly and Lohnes (1976) contend that while such

tests are certainlylot perfect, they are the best thing:we have available,

Others (164., TO-Oham,41-9-70) recommend a form of driterion-referenced testingr"E'

to assess'sdhool or teacher effects. Beaus et al. (1979) agree, stating- _

-that tests shouldbe used that are more congruent with thespecific schpol

curriculu4 and instructional methods.

23

-


Additional problems with,the0E0 study concern the phvical conditions

under whichstudents were tested at certain sites, and'the ion (or/

lack thereof) of parents, students, and in partidular teachers. Many teachers

opposed the program because they felt threatened by the entire performance '

contracting idea.' It seems quite reasonable to suspect that some of this

..dissatisfactionmith the project may have biased teachers against students

ils)the experimental program. 'If this were .so, one. might expect to find that

athese students id not perform well on ether subjects taught by the teacher.

In fact, this result was found.

-

Given-the laCk of plannink time, unsatisfactory methods of measurement,

insufficient assessment time,and poor research design,-it the only

conclusion one can draw frOm the Mistudy is thiPthere.was a lack ofplan--

rting time, unsatisfactory methods of 'measurement, 'Thu.*, one can say thatu

.

this experiment did-not supi3lortj.he idea of-performance contracting, which-

is not tossay tnat,"Perflirmande contracting mist thereforinot work."

...Ale 0E0 and Dorsett studies underscoresgue of the problems:with the. ,

-rationallsotifmodel,oforganitational'effecti/iness 4a.aPolied-to'sdhool

systems. While operative,'quantitative goal6 'are stated, they topically

do not represent the domain of formal goals for a school 'system. Theresult,

as in-the 0E0,study, is a preoccupatiOn with those goals which can be for-/

many Meaaured, The conflicts of'multiple-constituencies regarding goali

are also evident in the performance contracting framework. A concentration_ _

_clii'.certain educational outcomes as end-states would...inevitably result in_- g.

vamllidts'over appropriate means for facilitating such end-states_between

41, . ,

-students, parents principals, and teachers. The hostility of teachers (to_

;."` 41

1

SChool Effectiveness

22

the'notion of performance contracting is also -ypical of reactions to goal-

oriented management approaches which 6 not base specific end states 6n.,

input from those most affected (DorribUsCh 4 SdEtt, 1975).

The discussionof the 0E0 project was presentedto accentuate some of

the problems common to performance contracting in-general and to a rational-.

goal approach to educational accoUhiability. .Similar critiques could:be, o

made'Of other rational-goal aliproaches;to aqtcbintahility programs su,thkas

voucher plans (e.g.; tobert',197n. Critics of contracting view such prO7

blems as either insurmountable (e.g., Hottleman, 1971) or in dire need of

attention before vtholesalebadoption of.such an approach (e.g., Gramlich &

' .Koshal,-075;isyrhofer, 1972). NecklenbUrgeranctWilson (1971) present:-.

..

.-. . .. _

.a case study of 'email' of the problems_with performaSce cohtractink in a

=

large city system. As in the'disoussidn of.common criticisms of.the rational-,

0.

'goal. model of effectiveness (e.g., Blau & Scott, 1961; Caeion, 1978; Rice,-. .

1963); Mecklenburgii7.,and Wilson 1,197l). cite the conflict of operative goals .

e acrals.the various Iducational constituencies as the principal cause of,

- discord with contacting Teacherstend toview'pe;formance contracting as

a odnitive measure to b.0 used only of a basis for firing:people (dramlich,

Koshel, 1975). The use of contracting in any sort of teacher incentive

.-- 1 framework is rare and,not well received'by teachers anyway (Nation's Schools,.

I,

'1970). 'The reaction is not unlike the,common reactions to other goal-oriented

programs Blida as management-by-aobjectives .(Levinson, 1970):

A major criticism of the rational-goal model that appears to be.ade-

quately handled by sChollaocountability programs such as cOntractingtr

voucher is the belief that organizational goals are. retrospective in nature

40

A .

,.0and serve only to justify action, notto direct it (We.ck, 1976). Under

% .

mostaccoUUtability systems there are at least formal, 'long -term goats s4'

.

School EffeCtvenesd4,

23

,with changes made in criteria for effectiveness 'Prior to teaching: For.

example, McDonald's (1972) accountability system for New YorkrCity included

a provilkon foi petiodic view and revisions 'of kll`progrank-oblectiCed (see,

also Alkin, 1973; Barro; 1970;. Lieberman, 1970; 'dtd.Lopev, 1970). Thus,

!many accountability programs do view schools as open systemg,where goals

.0

and criteria are changeable.

01,

For the' practitioner concerned with assessing effectivenesslwith the

goal of imptovemett, the problems of coalictitg goilt and constituency in-.

vOlvement are'petson-specific., not approach-specific, and can be-adequately

handled by a' "-cascading process" in_goal-setting.,-In this approach bvad

- objectives are, set at the school board level and filtered down-to,-

.

VI'goals at the school level. way 11 who are to be affected take .

-1

part in the goal-setting process. This should result in school-level.gotls4 . o

that are comp; .1..

With broad system objectives and at the same time foster

.a feeling' of cohesiveness throughout the entire school system bec'euseilip..

'involved 'are working-toward the same' goals.

There remain, however, some problems:that are approach - specific making

the rational -goal approach gfiestionable as a framewotk withia'whiCh to assess°

a sabot)l system's effectiveness.' First; the approach is c4Teerned only with.

Outcomes. There is no mention of how goals are to be accolloplished, only'

- that thershpuld be. This outcome orientation results in a second problem.

The rational goal approach, by coitentrating on "ends", will by its very..

:;,

'nature, emphasize those skills that aremo,teeesily meAsurable $wat the'

.26to.

Iti

o .

,


24

,exclusion ofOther skills. 4s a practical matter, this may result in a,

cOncentration,by teachers on the basic skills which are measurable by

standardized achievement tests at ihe expense of more abstract skills.

probiew- the measurement issue. This issue,,ThIS:bxings us to the

along. with the two,previously mentioned criticisms will be returned to

after a 'descriptia'<of.the management-by-objectives approach since they are

relevant to both approaches.

Mini ement-b -Oh ectives del

'Many 'researchers view management-by-objectives (MBO) as a complete-eye-s

test,of planning,and c trol interfaced into the orgagt4tion (see, for

example,..Campbelfet al.,-1974 and OdiOrne, 1965). However, the basic pro-

`gram' of MBO originated as A mechanism, or, device; the activation of which.

sed.performance and organizational effectiveness by

"careful ly-formulating organizational goals. in terms of quantifiable results._.

,and.thebehavioral,ditectives needed-to achieve them. This initial formn-

fliticm:, though, was soon augmented by alneed to confirm results, and to M

implement coOperatiyeplanning, and behavior - intervention, as initial,

- . .

attempts to engage the "mechanism", were seen o f- The concept of an,4

MBO,system replaced the original mechanistic tion, and some researchers

sofar.astosaythatmoisscoiPletephilosophyokmanagement

.:(nbrecht,..104).

-i.PeteriDriicker,'inThe,Practice of Management (1954), proposed a prin-

-!,-N

.ciple of Management for business enterprise to harmonize the goals of the

ivtganigationlihilealloyaing for full individ61 output. This was presented0

terms of-resnlis accountability as opposed to the emphasis on the. human

4

0


25

. relations approach dominant at the time. However, Ithough Drucker had

implied a philosophy of managemeit, the rigid or careless applicability of

this printiple without regard tohuman resource factors, or incomplete im-

plementation in terms of evaluatiOndeficits, demonstrated the limitations.

of a mechanistic MBO, Numerous criticisms and new suggestions have beet.

offered. A system of MBO was deemed, necessary -- a way to incorporate MBO

into the conceptual framework of organizations as open systemsof'the

total system, so that the objectives are t'coordiaation of .the goals of all.

.

Orr'.the-other subsystems in light of the organization's main goals. Since the

task is to quantify these objectives; these results could be considered as

dependent variables (or'functions),Rf the parameters (systems) of the organi-Wiation. Of course, the `problem lies in the delineation of parameters,for the

. .

more tenuous constructs, such as job satisfaction and the need t6 recognize

human relations factors in any'MO formulation: In theory, however, an MBO

systemShould maximize the efficiency of the organization by not only the

increased incremental sum of the achieved goals, but by the interaction of

the entire system as well, creating a,set of provenlnethods.which together

make'atotal and comprehensive management system to improve company and

.manager_ performance (Humble, 1973). System approaches toward the_iMplemen-,..

'tAtionof MBO have increased their attention to parameters such as jobm

satisfaction and other human relations factors in the recognition of the

need for a cooperative thrust at the subordinate empUyee level. ,Risearth

larthis area attempts, to quantify these more abstract constructs with more. :

measurable effeCts. Sylteme approaches are the mostprevalent interpreation

. .

itythe'reCe4t literature, in which the NBO system_ functions as an. organic

s


26

J,toplto be pra4Acihterfacid: "when the various aspects are 'integrated

with a balance between the individual and organization needs, ... you have

'organizational effectiveness and results"' (Beck, 1976).

,Those who view HBO as a philosophy tend to subsume the previous-7

approaches in the forMulation of an EBO attitudirto be conveyed to subordin-

ates by the manager in a holistic way.. Karl Albrecht describes this phiio-..

sophyin his Successful Management by Oblectives (Albrecht, 1978) as a batic

-mentality of managing and that when mistaken for a system ora set of prin-

.

ciples, a "rigor Mortis" mentality can develop which will destroy the adap-4t

Live features of efficient management by allowing the responsibility of

managemeht to slip into the'untbanism" or syateme In other woids, Albrecht'

Wieves that when MBO.ittaked to be a."system" by which to' manage effec-9

tively, the possibility of inappropriate laitialnstallment and failure to. .

acCommodate changes in tlie organizational environment ma obscure theeffec-

tiieness of management. Critical to iiViecht's formulation, the MBO

sophy consists of: (1) an objective-oriented manager whose "systems" uader=7. .

. .

standing conforms to the organizational goals and guides subordinates; (2)

the need to instill the,:appropriate46

objectives' orientatiaa to the workersi

2.. .*

(with a full uhderstanding of what mg0

.implemedtation of the above principles

260,11ke the rational-goalmael,

is"tryingoto achieve);.ank(3)

in a reward-centered environment.

specifies ,the priMary.Citeria.of

effectiveness by chealnewhether or not the organization haii accomplished

its specific goals, and thus fits closely under-the'val-Otiented operation-,

,- . . ,

t'sliiation df.Organizational, effectiveness'. IGO, as by Campbell et._

, ,al. (1974), rather than evaluating the arganization.on'saie single abstract

. i. . ,

L

Cft


27

continuum such as the cost /benefit ratio, states that effectiveness is some

aggregation of. specific, concrete, observable and quantifiable iccomplish-s

meats or failures. Therfore, organizational effectiveness can be approached411

through,a review of MBO"!tudies on performance evaluation, and in terms of.

school evaluation, by focusing on MBO is the -public -sector,:aad where MBO or_,...: <

--facsimiles already have been established in school,systema (e.g.,'Dyer, 1970; .

rgy & Burns, 1979; Berman, 1978; Lasher, 1979; Malsam, 1979):::

Management -by- Objectives implies a planning function as represented by

the seed to -quantify what must be done '(after careful analysis of .why it

must. be done, from the organization's long-term and shot; terns goals), the0

speciffcation-of-the' necessary- degree-of-detail as= to how- it must be done,

the coordination of activities embraced by the process mandates assigning

the time.these tasks are-to be done, and finally; the need for accountability

suggesting a weighing,of costs of-the system versusr the benefits.

Management-by-Objectives also implies a controlling function in the

sense that it provideaa-method for determining him well the, prepared objec-6

tives=are being,, erfOrmed; how effective the,coAileted activities are in

'realizing the' organizational goal's, and the necessary corrective action for- ..-

4

improliag plrforMande or'dealing with unexpected situations.

-JOnes (1977) ;onsidered the problem of accountability in education, - ...

through an MBO procedure foi guidance and counsel$0 programs.- The file.

7.....moith4tudy-involved .,82 counselors and -5724tudents la, a northwestern

ChidagO'high school district: including five high schools. :An MBO technique

_ .

01.0ed-lorthe test,: group of counselors, and, a traditionalgrotO and

Oditrol:groap'<whose members believed they, had all "instinctive" flair for".

S.


28

-answering student needs) were'included. Reactive data indicated support for

MBO but no uhare:.oriterli were used in the assessment.f

A of guidance programs in Maine by Vanzandt (1977) in-400.'

-31Pro.

'corporated the use of a special scale developed to quantitatively measure

the qUality of the program's services. The scale was designed for t

-student groups and. a teacherevaluation group by means of a Likeit 5-point

scale rating both the programs and services, and the counselors' personal/

professional skills. The study was an intervention design where art'MBO4

program was implemented after a baseline,had been established, and feedback

concerning the "treatment" during the course of the study was .a critical ,,

ellasent'of-Vanzandes NBO model.4

Random simples of students from, the sixth, eight, eleventh, and twelfth

grades and all teachers were inclgded in the adminisirtion of the Guidance

% Service Rating Scale and a heeds assessment scale to provide the information

about each of foUr school's guidance needs. Steering committees composed of

students,, teachers, adiinistratOrs, and counselors used the information to

determine the priority concerns of guidance,:then established criterion--%

referenced,behavioral objectives to direct the guidance programs toward the

priority necs.. Time'phasing and strategies focUsing on counselor-OUtcomes

were incorporated to emphasize the' intervention strategy and constrain the

interpretation of the results. COmmunicatiom about evaluation results and

-.-decision-Making,were stressed as integral elements of tfie.H10 model. Un-,..., ,..

1. .

.

fortunately due,tothe limitedttime that could be devoted to the project,. , . .

o'.

. .. ...4the results were more a reflection of'the process, of using the. MBO model

- ,

thad'an evaluation of the effectiveness of4700.f

Sdhool Effectiveness

'29

Although the problems with this design are the consideration of extran-

eousvariables and the reliability/validity of the rating scale, the scale

did find significant differences (p < .05) in terms of tie evaluations made

by the students and teachers from the'Guidance Service Rating Scale. The

author concluded that MBO'may-have a plade in thesprograms for its practi-

cality in help g guidance programs establish accountability.

study involving university faculty, Ihetty and Carlisle (1974a4,

1974b) fbulid that their MBO program increased the awareness and specificity

of goals for participants, improved career planning and professional develop-

ment, and led to overall improvements in planning. Additionally, supervi-..

sors in the study-indicatedgthat the MA program 11d, to increased objectivityo

in performance appraisal. Perhaps most important was the,finding that t1B

led to "significant' increases in individual performance., On the negative,.

side, participants indicated a substantial increase in "unnecessary paper - \1.

. ..

. ,.

.work." Unfortunately, the'authors measured .the effedtiveness of the program

with epost-implementation measure only, used no'control group, and measured

all-variables with ra

(1975) 11aworkwith s ff members of three universities. Two-other studied,

(Lasher, 1979; Marsh, 1979) report positive results with 14130, in academic

settings but present no data to support thetr positions., In a study involving

juniOr college administrators, Rossano (1975) found better superviior/sub--.

ordinate-relitiona'subsequent to.the-implementation of ME0 bait no difference,

scales. Similar results were obtained by Smith .

in Performance levels..

Applications of MBO at the elementary or secondary education level-have

en,quite,limited. Altergott (1970) collected interview data for high 4Ehool

School Effectivenea

4 S. 4.

'a . .. .. . .

,

teachers inyolied in an HBO, program.A

Participants indicated that MBO en-.

,courased- more specific ptogram planning, improved subordinate/superior re-

..-

_lationi;-increased subordinate paiticipation in goal setting and perceived.

.

, . ;,'' ., \ ,

subordinate euthority:' Finally, participants, indicated a higher level of

motivation under the HBO'pr4rams. Altergott (1970) concluded that MBO is

30

'an, excellent approach to management' for education. However, his study was4.

methodologically weak in tjii no control groups were used, no statistical

tests were made, no objective data were asas

implementation interviews were conducted. In a

participants toward HBO fqr appraisal purposes, gads (1974) found elementary

/1

Criteria, and onlypost-

stuAy to assess attitudes of

- and secondary teachers exprissed'a.more positive attitude toward a "super-.

visionbrobjectivee" program for evaluation thaseveral other more subjec-

tive approaches. Principals-also indicated a stronger preference'for the.

MBO,,,approach to appraisal. The stwiy was one of the more methodologically

rigorous designed to assess theeffecti. of HBO.. A longitudinal-desigmwas

Used with pre-test and post-teit data -and tesults were compared to. results"4

frolaa'comparison,gro4. iNo.

. 0.

''' Herthane(1978) and Malsam (1979) present case studies of HBO implementa-A

tians in school districts. While no data were reported, Herman (1978) stated

.

thii objectives were'succfsefully met with_the program. Several of the ob-

jectivel were concerned:with cognitive achievepent factois, such as: to

.decrease by a minim* of 3 percat the of studeoAreading below,-...-,

_ ._ . . .. c_ .

.gradi,level-in the, )siddie schoolitgrades 6 through 8; and.to.cause a gain of,

atlas:it one .month beyond the no reading pattern established by the

pupii O't'Who remain belograde levelwithin the time period September 1, 1977--- 0

1-


31

e 30,. 1978 '(p. 89).

licLagan (1980) in studying a special education center4found benefits

_ ..

.

in the HBO approach-to defining measurable goalsand specific, identifiabl, , .

behani s.

public s

in and Sdhoderbeck (1976) presented theirevaluation of 140 in the4

tore listing the constraints found in this setting and offering,

three suggestions critical in the Implementation of MBO. The suggestions,

were-- 1) too begin with the initial formulation of clear strategic and

operation objectives; (2) to determine- he appropriate evaluational criteria;

and (3) to establish and develop an information gathering capability.

AThexesearchers say, that while in private organizations the formulation

of strategic goals is more of degreeTthan a question of kind, in public or:-

ganizations:the strategic goa

cite the- results of the Senat

have never been stated adequately. They

Committee on Governmental Operations in des-

cribing seven major progrm areas'and an administrative support area reflecting.

the'need::to define 4key-result° areas for rccessful 140. . To

strategim objectives, another tactical level is required', 'which includes,, 4 .

4N 4,

the sbott-run At this point, the planners must develop a con-, :.

\)

. "/

-

gruency between these levels.

,

',Once this has been achieved, the criteria .to evaluate the execution of

, A,these:goals must be developed, and while goal attainment should be concerned

.-:. ,

,

:with Costs,-quality is an important consideration as well. The "reqearchers

' "'alio related a number of -requirements for criteria they felt necessary (e.g.,. . ,

.,Aw.. .

definitiou6of tartet,'areeof coverage, clientele_ penetration levels, economic.

restraints, time dimensions, estimation of major'donsequendee, and a focus on ..

34

-

. School Effectiveness

3

the specification of the types and quality of SeviCes). Unfortunately, the

,4.

authors did not specifically state any suggestions for the quantifiability

of these factors, but merely tried-t0' identify the range'and scope of these

.items of consideration.'

.

Aplin and SdhoderbeCk colIected information from public administrators: .

employed by astate.a*4.114:171tig over 7000-employees, and found a number of,

......

0-factors critical for successful MN application within's public organization;

1) influence* in goal setting; 2) relevancy of feedback; 3) to level goal:

.: .

setting; and 4) organiz4ational support of 1930".3

4

. The study suggests rat the first consideration, the goal- setting pro-..

..

cedures, proved most effective'when the subordinates contrihgted equally asI ''

much:pla g as.

their superiors, and least effective when they perceived -.-010,..

. .

.:..

%.themselv to contribute more planning than their superiors. The data taken. . .. 0....,?:

from the surveys showed 53% of the respondents depiciing'this iijuatOn with. .

.:;-?.. ..

... .

only 19% reporting the optimum'situailon.'. The researchers suggest that,in.

the pubic sector, thereJaay be Aitelidency, sor. a "too.much4 degree of- ., ..

. lk. .

.

, freedom in establishing objectives -- a tendenvi'kor an overly liberal, 7 °_1

of freedom in'alloWing sutiordinatie to establish objectives which. i . r.

;.

wiilmegativelY influence thesesubordinate's perception .of their roles., . o,

- -..

Aterevanct-Nif feedback was another-factor seen avcritical for successful

11340... AlthoughlmUch literature'on feedback had-already been:collected, the

esearthett-poime out.that releVancy.of feedback ,will induce more positiye

aititudes,7graits't managerial efficiency, enhance the.goalzsetting process,..

d, in eta', geherati more 1"10 suppOrt and.

effectiveness..4 . .

Inothqr ficor COnSIderedby-ATAin.and Schoderbea was top level goal-4

I

0.

Nor

-

..

School.Effectiveness. ---.--i, t

33

setting. They noticed a previous, absence in theformulation of objectives

.at the top admilistratize laVel,:and impairment to the resulting MEO programt,

.11 these4particular'or anizations.-', :--"? # I4 .

The tourth,.conside ad.= 4.13 successful MO implementation was the organi-..,'''-,c-.

I.. .

rational suppcirt of the pirogra4.i The -researchers point out that the interest

:,

. ...of the.administrationlonst carry over to their subordifiates, and specifica4y,

.

rs.

.\'

the survey shows that 'the subordinate managers birror'the interests'aftheir :I-A..,

., ,°superiors. .

.....

OrA-plia-and SCOderheck also delineate some constraints on'the use of ME0

.,.,t

that have special sighificance for e'ducatiOnal.iystems. First, they state.1.,. .

4there is reluctance on bhe part og public administrators to rely on objective.4

'. .

. ..

..- data for evaluative purposes. Abimiliskepticism has been documented for-'* , . .

principals when considering the use of achievement test data to evaidate

teachers- (Austin, L979; Davis & Gross - Davis, (974).. Such a reluctance stands.

. .,-- ..

as a 'hairier to the widespread acceptance to MED among edUcators. Principals,..,.

( .,

for example,. may feel that they'haye acquired a spepial capacity, to sUbjec-;

tively evaluate,their teachers, and tftat as objective procedure such as MBO ,. . .. . . ....

,-.. -

'will interfere with what they. consider to be tfieir,uniqualyAMOpriato

.

appraisal method. Another factof:that resists the 611:Amp3.emontation of,

' 4B0 is the reluctance of administiation torewaiedifferential levels of

.teaching performance. The use ofmirit pay'orany kind in elementary and'.

Sedbt4arlfleducationbas been rareZwiph results equivocal (e.g., ETS, 1971).A

-Additildmilly, educational systems,are often controlled by- political configu-.%"". I

. -

rations that may,underm4ne the aCival control exercised by principals. Such

a-sinUationuill, in turn, lUduce'4 reduced obligationtowardCompliance with ,4

36

Ar

,

, r

-5.


-34

.thelp0 strategy. Finally, Aplin and Schoderbeck (1976) point out that

t;..,

todars changing environme nt demands mare flexibility and innovation in the

public.sector than the private sector to deal with' the changes in morality,

politics, legislation, and technology. It is difficult td discern how such

flexibility would affect objective criteria such as scholastic achievement

and thus, Mi0 programs established With goals related to achithevement.

Luthan (1976). has suggested that MO shortcomings in the public sector

areatfunction of the misapplication of the s ystem 4th the different demands

of service organizations. He proposes a contingency "approach to Management.

wherefunctional if-then relationships between the environment .(b9th internal.-.

and external) and management concepts. and techniques that lead to effective

goal attainment are deieriained. He maintains that NBO, as an other mange--

menit concept or technique, cannot be'universally.applied to all situations,,

because ofsenvironmental diffeiences. The identification of theae,environ-.:40

mental variables is thus necessary in order to implement HBO in the appropriate

7-fashion. .Luthan then suggests examining the popular constraints as a starting

includingr,1) the preponderance of pre-set rules, laws, and regula-

. tions; 2) lesi,opportunities.to participate in setting objectives; 3) the

-eMphasia'on senioriti, versus, merit; and 4) the lack of adequate performance/

, ..

__ ...

measures. 'He states that these "factors are more often used as excuses for.

,1.-. , -, poor management, rather than impassible barriers to effective management.

- ,

Whge,Luthalefeela that the moat. urgent task is the identification of.

thescvariables, he .presents no solutions or.sugges4Ons in light of his

'contingency management aPproaCia. . Luthan says this type of examination must:,

CoVar-NUCh factors A°the nature of objectives and political ,(educational)

6.

A


35

environments; high levels of turnover for public organizations, and the

'rapid change in policies inherent in these organizations;.,*

Before an organization implements an IIBO system there are some .basic

questions which must be ansiTered: I) what groups-or -individuals-set tAlik

,goals for a particular organization; 2) to what extentjis it realistically

possible to define quantifiable goals for an organization; 3) how should

the relative importance of each goal be judged;°4) to what extent is it

possible to know-whether an objective has been accomplished; and 5) is the

4organization willing to commit the necessary time and effort to the MBO

procedure?.

There appears, however, to be an even more basic issue to be raised

in consideiing MBO as a model of. organizational effectiveness.- Odiorie

,(1965) views the systA of management-by-Objectives as a process whreby'

. the superior and subordinate (or in this case, the administrator and princi-1

pal or the principal and teacher)-jointly identify goals, define individual

major are/it-of responsibilIty-in terms Of results expected of him/her, and

use.tbeie measures as guides for operating the unit and assessing the cop=,

tribu4on of each of its Membefe. this definition, kcOrding to Albanese

--(1975):,-brinis.out`two ideas basic to-most-appliCatiOnsof MBO. First, 160-

'IMplies air interaction between managers and their subordinates in goal set --

tins. A second basic idea of HBO is appraisal of actual performance against........,_

the.agreed=upon goals in 'the goal setting phase.. ,

There:is an argument that the objective,ofyMBO is to_ help_the.indigidual

,teacher-be-successful-betatse as tke teacher- succeeds, so-does the principal,

Y" 4tGrei;01 'school., and so on. While the Organizational literature cites the

38

4'


36

benefiti of goal setting for individual performance-(Lathai & YUkl, 1975),

successful. completion of individual teacher goals or objectives, however? Ido not necessarily gdaranteea. succeisful school system. To conclude that

if e-iiven teacher improves rea ng levels at the third grade by two months,

automatically makes tkp school system. as a whole effective,_ is to imply that

individual teacher goals can be chosen so as to totally represent the goalsr------

of the entire school system. This is certainly not the case. While an in-

diiidual teacher's goals. can be made compatible with the system's goals they

are not a substitute for them. All teachers in a school system mit have

attained their goals under an HBO system, but the school system itself mayt

not, have reached its goals. For example, many teachers may have set andr.L.- *

reached vals_canoarainle such aspects of the job as planning, maliging, and

organizing instruciion; prdviiug a favbrable psychological environmentA

for learning, and increasing reading levels by two months. However, if the

sc hool system that year ran at a substantial financial deficit, it would beA

difficult to conclude that the school system was effective even though cer-;

r-reStarCh'hisloCused '.texi..her or principal goal attainment, and nOt the

the major obstacleito HBO in the educational context is goal measurement

entire syftem (i.e., a district, county, or city system).

I Goal Measurement. E'en given a "total"; organizatiot-wiae HBO program,

-%,-

tam n individual teachers were effective. The pointphere is that ,the teachers',

.the ,systems' goals may not be completely aompatible. t of the

applications of MHO to school systems have made little attempt to adort any

type-of "ciacadtng prtcess" in goal setting, that would foster a closer

compatibility between goals across organizational. levels. .Most of. the.

-- (i.e., the "criterion problem"). The types of goals typically set by-teachers


4 37

6.;

. and/or school systeMelend themselves to be evaluated in one of two ways

Goals are either evaluated by ratings (principal and/or student) -or pupil

gain scores on s 'tandardized achievement-tests. Both means of determining

goal attainmenapbave'problems Which shall be,dealt with in tura:

A large number of studies havebeen,conducted which used standardizedA

achievement test scores as the criterion to measure teach r effectivenessV 4

(e.g.',,Anderson, 1954; Brophy, 1973; Ebel, 1973;Heil & WaShburne, 1962; .

Wolfe, 1R77). the educational literature has expressed mixed opinions as

to.the,appropriateness of using such measures. .Ebel (1973) defends the

use of standardized tests-as a basis' for judging the effativeness.of a.

"school system, stating that the information provided by .these tests help

school boards focus their attention am tie weaknesses of the school system,

thus allowing more diane and purposeful remedial actjon. Most of the --

empirical data, however,'would not support Ebel's position. Soar and Soar 4P

(19771, Brophy (1973), Hall (1964) and others argue against'the use of

--achievemffint test scores.4

, Standardized Test Sams as Criteria. Airasian,(1979) states that

standardized achievemenvitests have been criticized 6n three basic grounds:

,1)-those characteristics intrinsic to the test,.because of what they aie, or

what they measure; 2) those CharIcteristics not intrinsic to them, what theiv.'

aren't Oir:daq't measure; and 0 on the basis of what they chi, their perceived'

't

,effect on Pupils. teachers, and the educative Procesi in general. Airasian_

.,&

notes that those who 'argue that'it is a misuse of-teits,to evaluate teachers'.. .

_performance on the baiis of their, pupil'aStandardiied achievement test. ... ..

.4.0

t

performance have done so by menticping all of the characteristics cited

above: For example, typical commenti'voiced bythoselm opposition to the

use of. standardized achievement tests are that such tests measure only a


38

small sample of glut-teachers try to do (intrinsic.factoi), do nbikneasure

-specific,ciassroom goals (extrinsic factor),*and to use such tests in this.

manner will 'mean that test content will dominate the classroom. curriculum.

In reply to the criticism that standardized achievement tests do not

match the-specific objectives of an instructional program Cronbach (1963)e,

Offers the following. An ideal evaluation would include measures of an",

,,,,types-ofproficiency that might reasonably be desired in the area of question,

'not just the selected outcomes to which the curriculum directs attention.,.>

"It one wishes-tokinw how well a curriculum is serving.the national interest,..., ,

..,'

one shoulemeasure all outcomes that areworth striving for Standardized4), .et ,s, v..- . .

1achievement tests which sample a broader range are more likelrto help.

. . ..

, ,,,,. .,

.

answer the. question of the adequacy of a paitieblar curriculum than are tests

a 'tailor-gade to the specific instructional objecti4.es. While Crotbadhls point

regarding the dsefulness.Of standardized tests for'ivaluating a curriculum

are well taken, he does not speak;Othelesue og using such tests for the

purpose df evaluating 'teachers. A serious misuse of these tests occurs

atheaksingle Achievement test score is used as the sole criterion, in in IB0. ,

or ace0Untabiltty program for making important personnel decisions.

70.:r Kliadr7(19/1) summarized the major problems of using standardized achieve-*as,criteria_as_follows: _1) questionable test lalgity; _Poor

P.

'overlap 'between PrograMiabitest objecties; 3Y:inappropriate test instruc-

on an directions; and 4) confounding design:1i and formats. Averch et al. -. .

.

rr

r:

le


t..

' 39

(1972) add that auch tests are too often misused or misinterpreted. Airasian

(1979) reviews some Of these misuses. In addition, when using standardized,

achievement effectiveness or goal measurement is ,typically accomplished

IT the use of gain scores. Gain scores, however roduae a very biased esti-

mate of true gait (see for example, Harris, 1963; Nunnally, 1978).

The empirical evidence appears to support those opposing the use of

standardized achievement tests as criteria of teacher effectiveness.

Rosenshine (1970) attempted to ascertain the external validity of.

student achievement scores as a measure of teaching effectiveness. He noted

that in only one of the, nine studies reviewed was a correlation coefficient

as high as r = .50 found while all the rest were at or below r = .35. He

concludetthat residual achievement gain scores cannot be used as measures

of teaching success with any confidence.

Shavelson and RuSso'.4(1,975) review also questioned the ability of

achievenent tests to accurately assess teacher effectiveness. The'authors

note the consistent conclusions of previous research as to the "instability

1

of teacher impact on student outcomes" (p. 29)11NhiCh may be attributable

to thg'instability of teacher behavior, am area that has not been assessed

in its,awn right. They point to the problem of the lack'of an operational

idefinition'of teacher -effectiveness, and to strengthen their, joint, draw

out.four qualitatively different definitions from 'past reseiicht Anothei

problem they cite is the "collective display of stability coefficients which

vary unsystematically in magnitude"Ap. 177). They examined the studies in

10ScOntext of, the three'dimensions,of external validity as proposed by Snow'

(1974), and not Oftof those Studies met...the criteria on any one of those'


'40

three facets. The authors concluded that the instability of the data "makes

'generalizability in an educational context tenuous" (p. 38) and also recomended

against the use of student achievement scores,as measures of teacher effective-

neis.

Brophy'(1973) attempted to observe teacher efficiency, scores (as plotted

graphically*over a' three...year time span) as predratori-of _future success, as

0measured by pupil gain score. He was able to observe 51% linear trends

(linear, consistency, improvement, or'decline) from among the 145. teachers

who taught at the same grade level for three or more'years. Because of the

..0moderately low consistency found, Brophy also warned against effE:"indiscrimin

ant use of. student' gain on general achievement tests for assessing teacher

accountability" (p. 252).

In a classic study, Barr et al. (1935). tested the-validity of several

measures of teaching effectiveness as'measured by gains in pupil achievement:

Reported correlations betweentheninteen measures of teaching ability and

pupil achievement were "uniformally low and insignificant" (p.,137).. Inde-

pendent variables included a composite of seven commonly used-rating scales,

a composite of six tests of teaching ability; and ,composite of all 19

variables. The inconsistent datat also failed to indicate a prefereAce bed

,tween the several measures of effieiency, cm to validate any of thbse "cam-,

monly-usee.teacher rating scales.

instiliseMnis ahosin'wep eternally'

The authors concluded\thateither the.

invalid Qr., tiles Stanford Achievement' Tests

.were inadequate is criteria forgains%in-*putill'achievement.

."*'Anderson. (1954) correlated pupil,. supervisory, and self-ratings with'

=Atli pUOil gain scores. Using& series of regression models using pre -test

a

o


41

sco es,'squared pre-test scoresoimpil sex,fand teachereffects iktriables,4

t,healso attempted to predict pupil gain scores. The rating scales had no

significant effects as was the case with the regression equations. Anderson-

concluded thit4the results did not yield sufficiently high correlaiikona to

justify the use of residhal gain scores as measures of teaching, effectiveness.

Sdhi and,Soar (19771, in.their discussion of the problems inherent in

tiding test gain scores a4 criteria for teacher effectiveness, state that.

unless individualized background factots (1.Q., socio-economic background)

are considered, the criterion id useless and invalid. they state that as

much as 80% of the variation in class averages on those tests is due t§\fac-

-,..,tors uncontrollable by the teacher. The authors state that differences exist

in a teachers' success in instructing studws on simple, level items (requir-t

ing rote.' memorization only) and more complex items <requiring abstract

thinking), and that this distinction has yet to be the focus of research. .

°liorChase (1974) observed that standardized achievement tests measure a

.

restricted sample of a clhtlid's educatiohal-behavior,, and also tend to be overl

.valued. in the adsesdment-of academic performance. The tests, he claims,

overstandardize the curricnlum"br identifying certain topic's as more essential:_ -

.

which'constrIc*Iidi7idutl initiative and crgatOity-ok,pupils and tear lei's

He maintains' these variables 'are the key Lb pupil educational-grdWii-ind

matUrity('Ihenkamp.(1977), 'notes that when cOncognitivetfactors are used,

they are used almost exclusivelp atodditionit predytors of tognitive per

formanCe:--The consistent finding however,' that these noncosnitive.fahtors,

dolmot'relate to cognitive performance hds resulted in the preMature conclu--A ....-

. . . . x .r. , .

-.-lion thit theif signifiCance is-limited. /ngenkamp states thht noncognitive

ti e

e


.42A.

lectors such as reduction of school anxiety, the forming of relevant motive- t,

Ntion and interests, and education toward emotional stabilityl, ail constitute2'-

important aims in education, whether they manifest themselves in the improve-,

meat of cognitive performance or not. Another problem according to Chase

(1974) with the tests themselves is the suStests, which the authoialsees as

having too iew items to"hold up to minimum validity standards as well as

they"should.

It appears that the most "countable" results in terms of educator

effectiveness are replete with problems of measurement and interpretation.

Empirical tests have for the most Part not supported the use of achievement

test scores as messure'of teacher effectiveness. Their continued use has

been-attributed to the fact that they have face'validity (Madaus, Airasian,

and Kellaghan; 1980) and prcrAdea "Politic;ily"attracti4e index on which

to base. accountability decisions ( Airasian, 1919). Ebel (1973) however,

points out thit many of the empirical studies have been methodologically

__flawed. At this point we4eaa only conclude that the use of standardized

achievement scores in an 1B0, as well as a-rational-goal approach to school

. filffectiVenest,has great potential for problems of interpretation.-

It has been suggested by Walls et al. (1980). Vstat to be considered. .

valid, outcome measuressinatUdies of school effectiveness must tap.achleve-.

meats, skills, processes, and learning that are specific to school itIOTUC.

)ti our:,,If the outcome measures-used to assess school effectiveness are pri-',\

1. mil surrogates for home background aid general ability, rather than. .

.t ,%

achievement,measures of school-specific n inferences about the diffeEential. .$

1 "k OPeffeetiveaegicif*hololsare iavalid, since the measures tell us little

;' 2

.45

s

Nt'

about whit is taught in schools. To deal tri.th the relative insensitivity of

4

' School Effectiveness

43

Standardized norm - 'referenced achievement tests for detecting school - specific

,4*pupil achievement, some have advoiaed. the use of criterion-referenced tests

(Cronbith,41971i-dlater & Niko, 1971). It should .be noted at this point that .

the same chievement test can be. criterion-refe4;enced test or a,norm-referenced

test (Meh & Ebel, 1979),. The distinctions refer on.14. to the interpretation

Aof the test, not the test itself or the way it is scored. A norm- referenced in-

terpretation add's meaning tp a aerson's score by comparing it *to those of .other

individuals in aspecified group. A criterion-referenced intiefirpretation,, an the

other hand, -adds ,meanirit to a person's score by comparing it to some specified

criterion of proficiency. Thielatter interpretation appears more compatible

with the goals of accountability programs and seems more, appropriate for

HBOmeasurement for. use. in an HBO or rational-goal ,approach It should :be noted, .,,,sostr^. .

N. . . ., .. .

however, that not everyone wciad agreeTivith this recommendation.- Shepard

(1980) states that the standards used as Priteriktfor criterion- referenced tests. .1

are arbitrary cuttini points.along a continuous performance scale which im-

pose an artificial dichotomy. Ibis dichotomy. serves to obscure, performance4

information about individuals along the- entire continuum. In' addition,,

Since it -is not possible to have an. objective, nonjudgmental, standard set-.

,ting processi Shepard retaMmendsthat standards not be used to interpret testti

data regarding the value of educational programs. However, by. its very

nature, decisions regardingekeffectiveness must always contain a judgmental

component. . The pradtitioneWis aisd'reminded of the other ,limitations in.

the tse.,of, test stores for egectiveness detisions, particularly the use of

one- in4ex as, a spa, .criterion and the fact that the tests are typically not4

s-: c.::. ..Y4`-' ;'. :

,1 . )

...?" ..

Ia ,


Ill

__,

,..,, .. 44

:-,,,-

measuring school-specific factors. While a strong case can be made for the

use of a criterion-referenced interpretation as opposed tOa, norm-referenced

interpretation of standardized tests, the question still remains as to

whether achievement test Scores Are an appropriate measure of school systems

effectivenesA. The data, at this point, seem to indiete that they are not.

There is one final-criticism of tests pertinent. to this discussion.ItWhile tests may distinguish between those pupils who have lamed something

00

and thole who have not, they provide no informatiOn.as i0,fiOw or why the, .

learning did or did no& take place'. To assess the how ot7,whi the 'most fre-.

=

quently usedyform of teacher evaluation is a rating done bx,e4her the princit-,:

.;

pal or the students (e.g., Critenden &Norm, 1975; Ftey, Lena, & Beatty,

1975; McNeil & Popham, 1973; Scott, 1975; Watson, 1974. ks wit -.achievement

test scores, however, there is little consensus in the .education literature

regarding the appropriateness of their use. Scott (1975),and Watson,(1974)

"a

,.

view student ratings of teachers -,as constAsii,t,, uti ng.on o demost cretble ...,,.

indicators of professional performance available. and view the information

obtained from evaluations as being valuable anctmecessary% Watson (1974),in.

- .

dhe study found, that at thelmigh school level, teacher feedback frog students,

f

was more effective than feedback from supervisors inI, :leadineto!.1 positive

thange among teachers. ,Thialupports another criticisms f 11BC!..MBO.wss

not originally :designed to be used as'a performance appraisal strategy., It'.,

is best when used as an organizational development tool, the benefits (4 .

'iihicia'are supported by'WatlOn's (1974) findings.

. Although used frequently, many have questioned the validity ana.tfaix-,

ness of sypervisory, ratings of teachers as presently conducted ;Crittenden &

4.

0

.

School Effectiviness

` 45

Norr,'1975; Marsh, 1979), Robinson (1978) notes that most evaluators (i.e.,

,principals) ha-gelid no training in observational techniques. McNeil and

'Popham (1973). review of the educational literature, criticized super-,

'visory,ratings as being unsatisfactory on several grounds,, including the

confUsioi of a teacher's personality and stag relations with his /her teaching

ability. In addition, teacher ratings, like any other employee ratings, are

plagued by problems of halo, central tendency, leinency, etc. A thorough

review of the errors associated with performance ratings is presented by

. Landrand Farr (1980). MBO'tYpically calls for the measurement of countable,

quantifiable results (e.g., achievement test scores) in order to avoid some

OLthe pr121inems'hgmuManjudent. Witkathis approach, however, the is. -

.,

thd distinct' possibility that the more "proCess-otiented" variables, will be

:ignored because they do not yield easily "countable" results. Exclusive.., ,

1 , ,:. ,.

attention to, mend results".such as student achieventent'wlile ignoring teacher

le ( ,-....

behavior could.prove disastrous in terms of unmeasured, long range criteria .

,-such as student

as 4

d.vebitle to

.

attitudes toward learning. While teacher ratings can serve

rate teagher behaviors, they are typically not used as such.

-.Ibis is disheartening in light of Rosenshine and Furst's (1971) findings

sedan reviewing 50studies Of'clessmook instruction. These authors found'

that grdwth in cognitive echieveiient'appears to be prombted by 11 classes of

teacher behavior (e.g., clarity of presentation, enthusiasm, avoidance of

strong negative critasms). IA addition tobehavioral components, Hanushek

(1977) stresses the importande of teacher'S personality characteristics as

they relate' to student performance.:

es :a PractiCal matter, there are 'a number of problems inherent in goal

'

e 40 e

"1.

Ube"! (1973) stresses the imIportanc'e-f em.ployee.pa ci'pation in goal *

'setting. The question.thusAmises as to whether indi duals are.truly,in-

tereated snd/or.willing to participate in the goal'sett g process, and if

I4101.1dorir School Effectiveness

,

47'

they are, are they capable of such participation? According to Gray and.

tBurns (1979); a major reas6n why individual teachers are reluctant to

participate in goal- setting, and why MB0 doesn't wqrk-in schools, is

becauseperformance apraisals iraisals in schOol systems are nottied,to the reward, .

lrsystem in any way. Levinson.. (1970) .rejecti'ibe model outright, by seating

that since it is not tied to the reward system it will spbvertt its own

intentions. Salary increases advanceMent, and lay-offs occur as a func-

-,tian of collective. argaining and tenure. There are few, if any; penalties-

fotonediocre:performance.

;It would certainly be beneficial ifs performance.,was tied to the reward

system, 'particularlt at the elementary school level, where 4s0 appears to be

most appropriate. Much like the ra 1-goal model discussed earlier, MBO

proVidea a good framework withinwhiCh to assess the effectiveness of . .6,,

'teaching basic skills at the elementary school level. Goals can be easily

-established (e.g., incspase mathematical ility from a second to a third....

, , . ., ,

grade,level),that are compatible. with parties concerned, and their4w,,, C 1.00,

'- attainment can be measured reasonably well by criftrionreferencedInt. -0 erpre-,-.

' .. , . i

*tations'of-standardized achie4iment teats. The next questiot!hecames, is ,

goal-measurement alone indicative of effectiveness? The missing component'

thaieuld-make MBO-and the rational -goal appiOach complete as models of

school system effectivenesse-would be a concern with,behavAors as well as

outcomes, The functi,6nal mode/presented next incorporates this missing

4

Ti.

4 9`ft

The FUnctional Model

fi ,

P School Effectiveness

O

48

This model, as delineated by Cunningham (1977), states that effective-..

.

nese is, determined by the social Consequences of an organization's activities.. . .-

The crucial question ,is t howwell-db-the activities ;of thefiorgenization.2,.=

benefit its client groups? 'In terms of school systems these groups may be

parents, studehts, taxpayers, other schools, etc. The organization sets,

- .

. 0certain goals and seeks, to attain them throe satisfactia the Client

groups. These goals should be precisely defined, and the activitielleces4-

ary for their accomplishment. should be delineated. Appraisal of organiza-

tional effectiveness considers whetherthese >activities ,are TUnational orf .$7 .', . q I

sfunctioneLia achieving its ioali. Unlike the other approaches there,...,.

- i, ,

is ahx-4siphasis on "means" in edition to "ends".. : ',,

.f- i' - ' .s. . ot

-..fsx;c'4. s:114144100: cation., ,hoyeveg, -is this functional-dysfunCtional &lien-

,..,:'' ... ' '''. ':. . Z`1. ,' -!'.iY-, s-

:' - - t -t ' .. , A ;sion appli:ef;olai,t;t4:;,,tbe °organization "(i.e., the activities 'are only assessed ..,,.

< I. V " c, ., ' 0 .., 4 I ,.,V .0 ... t j ,A ? A ", - _° . 1:

in relation. to, the;44gaiiilation:,,,..;n.otthe ai'ent groups) . ' Thus, the organiz-a-0 ,aj. i . of a, .:. ' 4soy' b .' , .0

' ": ...0- 4tiOlt I S' activities woullfe,, estet hd as good' orb' bad only in regard. to their

,-. . .

I .2-1, , . ,,.:.0 1:0 .. .. .

Effect on the organization itifv3;f.fi:GOrieVal.ty, effects of these activities,

Cr 4 .2 . ' e7 .!' ..

on relevant-c4ient groups, are notitaitsictered. ' Thii seems to -be a fatal °flaw

T:',i oi'. 9

iii a . thedry whose frame of reference-; rthe -external society.,

4,-' $ rltichael. and Metfessel (1967) pteient. I model Of educational evaluation A*Ir.

. : f ,tat .is very: Compatible with -the filnctionalVerspective; their model attempts .. , ,

s 4.,

S - =

to account gor the effects of orgatlizational- activities On Alevant,,groups

ct;

a . 4 , A 1

external to the Immeaiate 'organiiaiiOn. Abair Model calls for: 4(1) the.,...... ,.,. .

evaluation of 'Programs involving members of. the total school Community such.

.4


49

:as lay individuals and groups, professional personnel, students and student

groups; j2) the construction of a hierarchical list, beginning with generalegr

goals and gOingto specific objectives which are operationally defined that

allow relatively objective measurements wheiever possible; (3) a translationrs

of the specific behavioral objectivis_into a form that is communicable and

,applicable; (4) the development of criterion measures which reflect program

effectiveness in terms of the objectives; (5) the periodic use of these

measures to assess behavioral changes.consZsteat with the objectives; (6)y

isthe analysis of data generated-by' these'measores with appropriate ,statistical:

methods; (7) the' interpretation Of these, data in terms of certain judgmental

standards to.derive-information abouthe direction of. growth, students', ..

progress; and the effectiveness of. the total program; and (8) recommenda -..

.. .

bons which are based upon repeated cycle's'of the evaluation process and

which provide further implementation,and modifiiation of the broad goals

and specific objectives. y

,

The authors also present mullple criteriamomeasures for the evaluation

'or school programs, ,such' as: (1) indicatO7 of status or change in cognitive. .

and affectiire behaviors ofstudents using standardized instruments such' as

'Pachievement tests, self-inventories, etc.; (2) indicators of status or change

in cognitive and affective behaViors of-students using informal or semiforial. .

.... '.t:

teacher-made instruments such as in etc sentence techniques, interviews,, . .

peer nominations, etc.; (3) indica ors of statui'or-thinge in student behaviora N6 * ,-,

:using means-other,thaa-the-abOVe-SUCE-iiibiAiieism; attendance,,anecdotal '. . .

records,-etc.; (4) indicators of status of change iii cognitive and affective. . ,.

'behadlois of teachers and other School personp#1 such as attendance, published..

ii

. articles, elective offices, etc.; and (5) 'indicators


L50

community behaviors

such as alumni participation, attendance at special school events, parent.

:teacher conferencei, etc. With this paradigm, moreconaideration is given

to "means".(i.eilk behavioral measures) than,with other goal-oriented approaches

(e.g., Cunningham, 1977). However, as with other, goal-oriented approaches t.

the problems of goal measurement still exist and-aie not discussed by MiChael.

and Metfessel, (1967).

Goal Attainment Scaling: Goal attainment scaling (GAS) is another.*

popular goal-oriented approach ghat fits within the functional model of,

brganizational effectiveness. Introduced by Kiresuk andShermaa"(1968),

GAS is a 'technique designed principally to assess individualized gbalsAlt

specialized programs. There have been several applications of GAS to the

educational domain' Cytryubaum, Ginath, Birdwell, & Brandt, 1979) with con-.

centra4pn on programs in special education. Kiresuk'and Sherman (1968)"

list the major prescriptions for GAS as: (1) change goals must he set

independently of. the process (goal setter and deliverer should be indepen-.

dent); (2) aients should be randomly assigned to'treatment Conditions;:.and. ,

(3).the assessment of goal attainment should)be done ,by independent raters..

. '.' .., ..

-Cytrynbadm et al. (1979) note that 'most tof the studies evaluating applica-

tiousof GAS for school pro: e'deviated.from these essential require-

ments -(see, also.Calsyn, Tornatzky, & Dittmar, 1977). Cytrynbaumet al.'

(1979) conclude that the'popularity of GAS is unjustified given their thorough'

scrutiny of results. The-

. clarification of critical

.-apOroidh.'It,shotild also

Nauthors recommend further research directed at a

. ,,

icidInfluential parameters affecting the GAS

be pointed out thaf'Cytrynbatia et al. cite'

.4 A..52 .-

,fit

6


51

methodological and design factors that PrediUde definitive conclusions4 -

regarding GAS. C.rout (1975) p resents angexceliant discussion of the appropriateness

of the functional model for public organizations. According to his analysis,

the major features of the functional model are: (1) goal attainment; (2)

4. adaptation; (3) integration; and (4) pattern maintenance. Regarding the

firsvfeatve, iFoningham (1977) and others discuss goal attainment in terms.

of a set' of specific output values that are important for'key client groups.

The "adaptation" function deals with a determinatibn of resources that are

necessaryeto achieve the stated goals. Problems such as conflicting goals

of client groups (i.e., taxpayers, parents, studentS), and measurement issues

regarding goal attainment (Amerch et al., 1972; Ranushek,. 1977), however,

may atteauatehe appropriateness of the model for school effectiveness.

The "adaptive" aspects of goal attainment such resource procurement,

Management, and budgeting also represent conflicts between client groups

and organizational members (e.g., teachers). The "patterh maintenance", .

functionlinvolves a reductiom in conflicts.acrose'Client groups and 'within .

th ganization,(e.g., increasing teacher job satisfacti ) Thiefunc-

tion, however, is only considered as a "means" toward goal attainment.:

.

Thus,:giveAconflicting "client" goals, even "pattern mainte ance" functions.

Will engender _Conflicts across client groups and within the oganization.

The lack of empirical, support to-jUstify="pattern maintenance" function for

-- goal attainment (e.g., Setter. facilities will result in higher pupil achieve-.

ment; higher teacher pay will result: in higher pupil achievemegt and higher

- IPnan-cOgnitive,skilli) predicts constant strains for the integrative aspects

.

53

School Effectivenesd

52C

of the organization's functions and is its relationships with client groups.

One of the major shortcomings of the functioni del as it has typically

been applied to school systems is its.preoccupatiOn with "end-states" and its

consideration of "adaptative" and "pattern maintenance" functions only as

"means" towar&the "end-states." The functional, model is not toncerned with

(

is and of themselves, rathdr it emphasites "ends". The functionalmehns"

model then, in practice, is equivalent so an MBO or. rational goal approach.,,----

Thus probleMa of goal articulation and goal measurement that beset other

goal-oriented apitaches also affect the efficacy of the functional model

for educational systems.I.

.

.

. 4. ' SI`A. major criticism of the functional model is discussed by ferrow-{192),

who questioned the unidirectionality of the apprbaCh as conceptualized by .

.

,

Parsons.(19605--and'others.- It is the nature of static-research, he states,.

t,.

,

that-implies the organization's activities affect its.cIientsroups and not ,r. .

,.....--s,

vice versa. In 'the educational context,- not'onlydbili(th unidirectionality'.,,.

.

, .

..../....:,...--

'

assuMption. make little theoretical sense hat_taere is fai 7 strong enTirica.

support to refute it.as well .(e.g., Averiph et al., 19.7741- ushek,w1977).L

At a conceptual level the functional model appears to'doptainrall

the necessary cimonenti of a completeeffecti:geness model. Unlike t#

rational -goal model and-MO, it incorporates hotheads" and "means". The

'functional model is concerned with-the-illet:(of a school system's activities;

1

on its int groups. Unfortunately, the mblei as Aladusse4b7 Cunningham

(197I,/bas not been applied to school-systems. WheteWhemodel has been.

... (..,,

. ,attempted, 'it typitally codpentrates On "ende'at the expepseof\invest4ating

.,, ..

"means"..

While appropriate at a theoretical level,'practitioners.should bell°.e

. ,

at


53

*

a .$.aware that in apply* the functional model to school systems, they most

contend` with the'riioblems Of -goal-approaches (e.sy go measurement) .plusr- ,- tthe added Aiffidulty'of measuring behavior (e.e., which behavior should be. 40Slow7

...,

meitiared?.'hoWi-,,!4nd.by'Whom?)N Given the- difficulties' involved in the. .

_,

.

.lattera 1.a not sarptisin that most applidatiens of the functional model

havelocused. .exclusively on outcomes. in lieu of teacher behaviors.

.

es.

.,Thus',- for the p itioner concerned with assessing. the effectiveness

of-a schodl sy- em, the functional model offers the optImAl solution focusing.

on outcomes d behaviors:- The application of this approach to an ongoing

e .school syptem, however, would be difficult and time consuming. It would '"

betime consuming im.:the sense that someone.; be Yt fellbw teachers or prin-i

cipals; would need to take the time to observe teachers so they could eval--

uate theit ieh'avior.' It would be difficult, in the sense that (1) a4

teacher's actpities are dbt easiIY mehured or evaluated and (2)'different. .

:teaching styles may yield simirar results. Who is to say whit method of.-' .

. 'teaching is correct? The greatest difficult; however, is that ideally prac--. ,

.

:titioners would like to relate these observed behaviors to objective outcome. .

,

measures, which brinseai full circle,. back to tlie4roblem of.validitYfor4P.

standaidized illtt:Whefi has,alreadirSeen discussed.. .

,.#

The Cost' Benefit Model

- Cost benefit models' have generally been directed at the evaluation of

. the relgtive effectiveness of differentitraining programs. Such an evalua-.

tion is most often conducted in a goal-centered framework (e.g., Rivlin,

41971) and thus addresses the question as to whether an organization is .

.

accomplishing its goalruith procedures that arg cost-effective relative

lit4

1

School Effectiveneds

54

to other prbcedures (cf., Wolfe, 1977). The model implies that there are

alternative courses of action available to the organizatiod, and that they

can be compared. This is not usually the case. EffiCiencyls the centr4

variable in the cost-benefit model as with the systems-resource model (tp be

.

discussed is the next section). Therefore, the general problem with'measures..-4* '

of this construct addressed. in the context Of the systems model applies to

cost-benefit models as well (e.g., Pincher, 1972).

Simply stated, the goal of the cost-benefit model is to optimize the

ratio of.costs to benefits. There are two assumption implicit in :cost-.

benefit models: (1) that the components of both the numerator and denomina-

tor can be empiricallyt intuitively, or rationally reduced to single composite

scores; and (2) that the resultant composite scores have iatervat scale

. properties (Campbell et al., 1974): Both of these assumptions,have been

questioned,, particularly iaapplications,to school systems (Ratry, 1970;

-Rivlin, 1971)., Additionally, this model necessitates' -the use of outcome

veriables.thavare more distant and less under control of the organization.

being stUaiedlCa4ell et al.,-...1974).

The major advantage of the-cost-benefit :model fs d to school

systems is that it OrtiV/6A3711571715Alytital framework-for e.t, uating varidus

educational strategies. .Research has been directed at refining measurement

-strateigiev,foriboth inputs and outputs (cf., hise, 1968; 01ennan,'1972;

Panel, and Bush (1970) provide an excellent example of a cost-benefit

model applied to asocial systim; specifically, a health care system. They

also preSent a method for converting ordinal data to interval data., In their

56

1.?

4

r

study, effectiveness Was defined as the degree function or dysfunction

inthe affected populatiore This continuum was defined in t4ms of a per-, *'__.

.:-.0san's ability to care onhis/her daily activities. Taing.the paired com

School' Effectiveness

55 °

parilans scaling technique, subjeht matter experts derived interval scales

.-from judgments of the ordinal descriptions. 'The authors presented soma_data. ,

:,,... -.. .

an.a tuberculosis control program to illustrate cost-benefit analysis. ,. 170. '.

,

\,

As applied to,theeduCational'hontext; Ham* (1970) maintains that codt-'

binefivtamlystsrdo-not-consider goals-or obiecieires with-an open systems,

-2

perspective. Thus, constituencies who may be.

directly affected by decisions

_from cost-benefit analy'sis may have little 'a no input into the,setting,of,

. - , ,,, , .

oper1 ative goals on ',Alai the cost analysis isfbased. Furthermore', he alsii

L-j4questions the oyaremphasis on measures of effidiency to the detriment of ' ..-

'measures,bf effectiveness. Tle majority'of ,cost- benefit studies use pure,

../. , ca .-- a ." . ...-

cost measuresatas-eXpen41513x4sper pupil .(e.g., taw, 1977). ,Otherf-

$ ' d ;.studies have ask workload measures sucha4 nuilber.oeteadhera,per pupilor% s... . 2

--

physical Standards (Students fer square foot or peeclassroom). Airasian sl, ,a --

et.al. (1979) refer to these'as static variables; and notaithat while they,

ireisiier to. manipulate such praxvineasures are only indirectly (if at

O

all) related to measures of effectiVeness. A smaller group of studies have, 1 ,- , - . .

. ( \ . . ..

attempted to,develap\copposites.tb several measures using a common metric., .

such as dollars. Hatri(1970) classifiei suCh.measures as "hocuirpocus"'

,

in that they conceal the value. judgments made by the analysts., Rivlin (1971),, , . . . ...

. .

41, til,try alp), and Campbell et.al. (1974) .recammend azi multiple criterion'0. .

,,

...

approach to effectiven ss whereby a]l, relevant. constituencies (see Connally,...

'Conlon, &,Deutsche, 1980) assist in't e Specification of unambiguous objectives

c School Effectiveness

5$.

and methods of assessing their attainment.' Such criterion should not be made.,

equivilent using "bogus" dollar figures simply for the sake of forming a corn-,

posite criterion..

Wolfe'(1977)' provides an example of a cost-benefit approach that incor-,

poratei an operationalization of effectiveness that is i re'clos y 14nkld<,to the genera/ objectives of educational systems. He stag s'that tis p

4uctiam function approach On help schopl policy-makers m'*ke rational eci-,.

sions_inioiVing: (1)--defining-the -gdal(e5 of ale-systemT7(4)--callett

data relevant toftach pupil;'and (3) analyzing the information in a ystem...

atic way that relates inputs'to defined goals of output.

Wolfe studied a large urban schdol system over three years to determin

input - output relations fdi grades three -six. The major-questions f'his study'

were: what school and teacher characteristics will'mavitnize pupil achieve-,

oment growth. and, combining schoOf andteacher, characteristic, what are the

most effective inputs per dollar. The independent vaiiables used in thestudywere: Teacher.experienae; National. TeaCher Exam-score; schoolisize

.(enrollment)., class size; library books er puPilrrating.of teacher's

.undergraduate instructor; ucatianal level of te 'r; and school charad-_.-

413 (i.e%--,-play-groand-fdistage4,--Fdate--latindittoTt-dt-school):i La 4c- ,fr, .f -... '._ -4, . ..

The ,dependent variable-was student gain scores on the Iowa- Test of 'Basic

do. gicoas (grades. three.six). product/an 'function used in his analysis was:,

'AA is f(T'1T1 .6SES, T

2'T2

6SES,..., S1

S1, .6iES, ..Sn,-S

n 6SES/6SES;P6).

where AA is change in achievement score; T1 t .±4,ate

S1

Sn are schOol quality meAsures;,6SES is genetic

status; and £6 are peer-characteristics.

II 58,t.

teacher quality measures;

endowment socioeconomic

A


57

The results supported the contention that a systematic evaluation of

inputsin relation to outputs, combined with cost figures, can increas7 ?the

efficiency with which

(1977) found thit the

.

educatiohal resources are used. For example, lfe

cost per pupil was not directl4 tied.to,pupil a eve-

/tent growth (as preViously found;gammshek, 1977),. He concluded that current

resource,' can lie used more effectively by reallocation based on production

functions as 'in his stul Wolfe.(19 also found

turepatterns-yield-veri diffetenx-results-and.that-

;)re pattern could be selected as a function oi the

that different eipendi-

the appropriate, expendi-;

Priority of goals from

the multiple constituencies or the "dominant coalitions".

While'Wolfe's approach to cost- benefit analysis is an improvement over

many-previous attempts to link educational costs to outputs; the -major. .

drawback of the, study is that onlyone critetion (pupil gain..scores) couldN

be used in his operationlima5on of-effectiVeness. As previously noted, ,

Ebel (1973), bli;flually (1978)A and Soar and Soar (1977), discuss some of the

problems with using pupilgainkres onachieveient tests. In addition

numerous writers have cited the importanceof time frame:sod whIcb7.the cri-,.

taria are based (e.g., Mahous7A Weitzel; 1969; Yuchtmai &Seashore, J967)..

Effectiveness is Often divided.into categories such as immediate (or short-.,

ruz), intermediate (mi4dle-range), and Ultimate (long-run). Static, designs,

whiCh are(characteristic'of oost-benefit analysis,' would assees only immediate

effects and ignore the impact of-much effects as-intermediate or long term,

criteria. For'example, the use of cognitive measures as output at T1could

.

94tave deleterious effects°on-4.9i**

measures at T2 or T3. Also, the ex-

Clusive,concentration on factors dealing with cognitive developrient could

School Effectiveness,

58

-resulE in a negative impact on non-cognitive development at T1, T2, or T3.

This could Pove to be a seridUs probleq at elementary. educational levels

'given the recognized impottance of non-,-cognitive development at this level

and the implied linkage of cognitive achivimment with resource allocation.

is similar to that yhich "is characteristic of other goal-oriented

approaches; that ib,' attintion is directed toward measurable objectives at1 %

`the expense oebovealled:noh-measurat4e, non-cognitive components (e.g.,

The `prob

..creativity, abstract reasoning),.. t

At this point a distindiion between cost-effectiveness models and cost-

benefit models needs....s. made... While effectiveness requires' the quantifi-

cation of input costs such as teacher characteristics and facilities, the

.outputs or benefits do not require a-cosi'estimate 4ttached tb them. Rossi,

Freeman; and Wright (1979) use the example of a free textbook distribution

program for primary school ch ilaren that may'have findings of cost-effec-

tiveness'expresed as` "'*' total project; dollars increased reading sco*es'

by 'y' mdunrS. Thus, the textbook distribution program can be directly

compared to some otAr formof intervention, -the goals of which are also

o

-aimecrat increasing reading scores: Comparisons and 'rankings of \choiceA

,

can therefori be madq on, the basis offmagnitude of benefits versus costs.

-Related to tAtirol;ima oftlie criterion (benefit) selected in a cost-

,

Ar %

benefit analysis is the underlying-acpunting perspective to be adopted. .

,

For example; for educational programs, there are three accounting perspec-.

tives.that could be used; the. individual, the society-at-large or the ad-,

, .

ministiitihg-governailt. Germs (1971), for exiinge, in assessing the costs

of a remedial education program, identified individual costs such'as tuition

ba

60

9

rates-for college attendance, earnings foregone while

and additional expenses while in college. The social

..do,'

4444.. Aa. 4

SCfi901Effectivenehrat-'

59

attending college; (if

casts identified were

opportunity costs (gross of taxes) and project costs. The'governmenecoeti-'.. .

were tames lost and any project costs incurred. Rossi et al. (1979) and

Glenn= (1972) provide several examples illustrating that the same compom-...

wits comprising a cost benefit model may enter into the equation as;a"cost.,0from ane'perspective and a benefit from another. It follows them that

,..

..

. ',

.

ratio derived from the model will be a direct function of the'accounting ./.

perspective that.bas been adopted. Paul (1973) 'in,an analysis of managgiment

ethication, presents .an example of the extreme diffeiencesin ratios :that.,_ 4. . iresult from a change in the accounting perspective. Rossi et al. discuss

the det*ilj involved in-bdbh

.

While the different accounting'perspectives may result in diffident,

cost-benefit ratios, the adoption of an effectiveness 'm odel' where benefit

factors other than, for example,` earnings improvement. can. be considered0

Might increase the compitibility.of different perspectives*: ,Furthermore,

ihe derivation,of cost-effectiveness models from the different perspectives

could serve as the basis for discussion by the multiple constituencies or

"dominint coalitions" affecting the system. Such an approach.would be

more desirable than that which is typically...done when relative comparisons,J_s- 4,

0-----7--must-be--taftle between various educational programs Eirorder to decide'budgei-.

ary matters CPellegrin, 1976). Of Course; *tile this sounds like abetter.

approach to decision-making, it necessitates the pricing of variables that

are not easily priced. What, for example, is the price of the improved

cognitive -achievement of the'learning disabled versus that of the high

44.

u

9.

$

s.

.

rSchool Effectivenes(s-

(

60

achievers. -or the development of:ph sical abilities versus art or music

appreciation? Asking people what they'are.willing to pay fOr improved

',cognitive development of their children is one praposed method of pricing

-(Pas;p05 & Carey, 1980) but is i4appriPltati whenever the majority of con-

/ stituencies are not directly affected by certain decisions ,(for example,.

pricing for-special education programs that do not directly.affect. one's own

children).

Another problem with cost-benefit approaches for school systems is a

the.prioccupation with economicanalyses (e.g., earning power) tends to.

-devalue the importance'and'quality of human life. Little consideration,lot

example, is given to factors such as life satisfaction other than how it

e-relates to earning power <Abt, 1977). This problem is related to the difg-

.. , . .-.. , 4r

malty of pricing%certain binetits.. Oftentimes when prices arel'assigned re.4

.

benefits, the decisions for pricing. are arbitrary or purely speculative (e.g.,

'AD

.44,

Levin,,1975)., .

Macy and &rids (1976) describe the development andinplementation of..

/ a.standardized set of definitions, measure; and costing methods for various. - ' - - 1. . . .

,. 9

. behavioral outcomeirelated.to the quality of worklife. In a longitudinal, .

,.5

: , .

*study of manufacturing and assembly plants, theauthors derived dollar figures' .

...

.

for four.

variables,related

.

to member participatiOn (absenteeism, tardiness,

turnover, and work stopaiej iind six.vaxabIes 'reflecting role performance (pro-.

ductivity, product or service quality, grievances, accidents, job related,

illnesses, and unscheduled downtime). No studies c d be found in the edu-

.cational literature that. assigned dollar estimates to as many salient variables.f

Add4ionsllyteno attempts cbuld be-found where administrator, teacher, or

6

40.

Ai

ae

'


61

student 'attitudes ereessigned dollar values (see, for example, Mirvis 4

Lawler, 1976). Thus, in terms of a large scale model Of schopl:system

effecti4eness, applications of a cost-benefit apiro4ch have been largely.

incomplete. However, when educational.decisioMs.areclosely linked tot

dollar costs as benefits, cost4inefit or effectiveness approaches should

prove ton be a valuable input; It must be stressed, howeVer,, that for the

rpractitiOner concerned wth increasing the effectiveness of a school system,, .

.

cose-benefit analyses are only one factor that should enter into an effective-

4

-ness Model.. There are additional factors

not impossible to operationalize dollar

student attitudes, orgmiizational

(i.e., inputs) that are difficult if'

amounts (e.g., teachtbehaViors,

.. Thus, a cost-benefit analysis by

itself is not appropriatexo assess school systems effecti;eness but could be.a '

beneficial when used in conjunction with ather.appioaches.

Human'Resource Accounting. Other than as ascussed, above in terms of

earned income and relative program cost/benefit ratios, there.have been few

'attempts to,apply principles of human resource accounting (HRA)'to the

meaeurem5x of eddcationia efficiency. The theqry underlying, human resource

accounting is that the value of,humans to an Organization can be determined.

The different casting methods are, surrogates-of the actual value of'the

human organization.

Flamboliz (1974) has made,eXtensive studies of the value of an indi-

.vidual to an, organization, or the individual's. expected realizable value.

This theory recognizes several elements which give peOpler&valueashuman ye-

sources because they 'represent potential services to the organization (e.g. , -

skills and activities of persons upon entering the organization, reward structure

63

i3'

4.


62

A

of the particylaroIe, promotability, and turnover). 'Thistheory identifies

major factors ,w4ch Constiitte a person's illue and organizes them into a

logical framework.. .

a . rWith regard-,to assessing thevaludlof, the total human

60

organization,

Like= (1973) has aeveloped a basid theoretical approach. Likert's work. .

, '-, .

. . ,

actually"could.be,cotisidered.the4basis fejr.,the current interest in HRA. His. 3 . 4-.

human, resource ace4Wing mcislel, included causal;-

intervening, and end-result.. .

. .4- .

. . ,

. .variable's. -He:stressed in his model the interactive_ nature of ap. variables

.

c.... withinshis niedel.withmanagerAal-leadershipiC4Ceived as the causal variable..

. . .

... eS.

i. , ..,

1 N(... g

HeJlateeincluded organizationaqtructlf as a causal variable,as*wallas

0.. A adiscussed the influence of this xeriable, n.int,ervening variables such as

torganizatioclimate, peerlieallekship, groip processest ' / vtIP

to

_

decision-Maing-eic.);,and subordinatesatisfaction.41.

iables in -turn affect the end-result f(i.e., the total produ4ive efticiency).

$ Likert.posits differences in the magnitude the relationships between the--,',

(planning, coordinating,

The intervening var-

structural,variables and.the intervening variables. Such an approach could

also be presented in the' context of the lanagerial,process model of effec-t

..,Likert (1973) suggests that the causal and intervening variables caa,fi

he.,measured-:by-existing-socio-psychological_toola.......14wgausal human organi-

,zation scores then can be related to unit.":rmilmtime' costs through placing

dollar values on changts. In the "educational domain, however, attempts to

relateteacher training costs, for example, to output measures such as

student achievement have been largely- fruitless (e.g., Averch et al., 1972;

Hanushek," 1977). 'The educational studies, however, have been,fir less

64

C

1

.

School 'effectiveness

61.

IA10

sophisticated in their measurement strategies and make no attempt to relate

human resource accounting pxincipits to teacher or"administrator management..

For example, using piSi human resource costs, standard costs forthe acqui=

'sition of a new'teadher or principal, in a ertaid position could be developed.

:These could be used to evaluate the effici ncy of teacher recruiting a?id

hiring much As standard costs are used as. guidelines in a production 'depart-

meat. The areas Where costs are greateit could be determined and possibly,

reduced. If costs need to 'e reduced, it will be an iafqtmed reduction

0rather than an arbitrary cut back as is usually the-case (Pellegrin, 1976).

Standard costs are plWays useful for the practitioner in budgeting. If the

ngalber.-of positions needeff:to be filleg is available, an appropriate budget

for personnel acquisition can be determined.

Capitalizing training costs would decrease the tendency management

to view training. as a .uxury item. Training costs could be accumulated in.,

the asset accounts of the individuals who benefited from the training sessions

and matched later with output it helped to produce. Schoql administrators

.

,would.be encouraged to upgrade their continuing education 'programs since the

programs will Ve evaluated by long -range results (increased performance)a

, ., %

''.

rather titan short-range increased costs. The evaillatiOn would incldde a_

%Go

return on investment figure being computed for human assets, as_well as,.

'physical and financial assets. Additid6a1Iy, HRA data is useful ip evaluating

turnover. If excessive turnover occurs, it will be reported as losses on

the budget statement.*,,Basset (19725 presents an analysis of employee turn-

oYer "that has application to problems such as "high quality' teacher turnover\

and "low. `quality" 'tenure.

O

.65

: I4

1Sc ... /

P.,

,School Effectiveness

64

Tomassini (1977), in a study: of layoff decision preferences comparing

the decisions made with and without access to BRA information, tentatively

concluded that HRA cost estimates caused different managerial preferences

in the decisig-to layoff Personnel. lia this case the ERA. costs included

costs tovehire, and to hire and train new workers to replace those who did

not ?eturn. Not all oethe subjects with access to ERA data made.the same

decision but none appeared to have ignored the HRA data.

,Several models have now been presented for ERA (Cr t.& Birnberg, 1976).

Further research should concentrate on empirically testing these.models.

Before school systems implement ERA methods, they need to see whether the

benefits will exceed the costs. One advantage for the practitioner is that

Implementing the system need not be organization-wide at first. AT&T, for

example, has lised.ERA in measuring the cost of employing and developing

toll directory and assistance operators (Stone, 1972). This was a probleme

area for the. organization yetone that could be objectively measured in terms

of. costs. -A similar approach could be adopted for educational systems with.

a concentration-on one major personnel segment, such aS teachers., If ther

system is effective it can then be expanded to include other segments ofti

the school system.

While there are numerous journal articles that-diiais ERA and provide

the proposed advantages and uses, there have been no pure applications of

-1MRA, to, educational systems. The next logical step should be implementation

on a limited basis-and a reporting of the results. If ERA is to be used

: in a cost-benefit or. effectiveness framework for school systems, it is

:necesssry.for educational management to belemil r with ERA and its uses

66

Se Itoal Effectiveneas

65

and to test and its principles where appropriate: It is also

necessary that practitioners be aware of the fact thit while HRA can pro-,2

vide avaluable input for school systems, one should be .cahtious not to base

effectiveness decisions: on ERA alone. It is recommeri* that HRA be used

in conjunc4om.with the functionalrmadel of effectiveness. Combining these

tOotodels would allow the Practitioner to evaluate "means," "ends," and

costs.0

to,

Systems Models

The second taajor.view of orginizational4effectiveness is the systems

view (Campbell et al., 1974). This model regards the orginization as a

natural whole or system. Realization of goals is but one component of the,,

411,, 1- measurement of effeCti eness this model. Rathte,, the organization adopts

'the overall go41 of maintaining its viability ar equilibrium without deplet-

inging its internal or external resources..: The organization.is.seen to bt.e,in

. .

a constant state of flux, witbits structures spontaneously and homeostati-

'tally maintained.(Ghorpade, 1971). Etzioni .(cited in'Steersi 1976) argued'

that this,approadh was superior to the goal-oriented approaches. because it

focused on the system at worle. Gedrgopoulos and Tannenbaum (1957) also Main-,

tain that. definitions of organizational success must consider not only the. ,

a

cbjectives_of an organization but also the'mechanisms by which it maintains

,itself and pursues its objectives. The focus is thus'am "means" as well as

"ends 't O

The systems approach is based on an underlying organismic mo4el.that/10

N

stresses the interdependence of the various subsystems. -To assess effec-

tiveness under a systems viewpoint, one should ascertain the extent to which

. .

.

I

67 4 ,

a

k

es*

4'4

nr;

I

. .

School Effectiveness .I. . .

.

66

an organization is internally consistent, whether resources'are being Judi-.

ciouslyaciuired and distributed Over a wideariety of coping meaaniims,

and if the organilation is aaJustingta a constantly changing environment.

.

(Campbell eta1., 1974). This is a very dynamic perspettiv'pb. Indeed,' -7

Ghorpade (1971) states that systemic.criteria of organizational effective°

ness are'derived from conceptualizations of "needs" experienc by theA . .

ganization as a "living" social system.. 'lieeds refer to requirements that\$' .

organizations hate to meetAn ordermto survive: Conceptualizations of needs

;.and their criteria take many forms (Steers, 1 6) . Bennis-(1966) in fact

.,- conceptualizes thi problem from the pe caveof mental. health.

The reliance on goali, however, is s ill very-midi in evidence=in same :

- systems models. 'Ghorpade (1971) notes that-Parsons and Etzioni:, -two staunch

advocates of the systems approach; bath insist on linking'effectivg.with.:

1

goal attainment. They view the organization as'ams subsystem in a larger

-social structure. -Organizational goals emerge as outputs for the society.

Judgments of iorganizational worth are made in terms of the quality and

relevance of they organization's outputs toward assuring the growthanci

survival of some other system, usually.societyatlarie. Eoweier, social

accountability,sanimpartaut issue for school systems,.has not been formally

recognized in any theoretical system or framework. In addition, any systems

model thet incorpOrates the concept of.goal attainment:is Oubiect.to.the same -

problems noted earlier ablaut goal-centered apptgaches.--a ,.le, .. t I ..

.

141, presented in Table 2 are five of the more prominfnt systets approaches . .. .-.,,,,t --

.

,a

in the literature on.organizational effectiveness.d

'Thetable.summarizes, A

.

these models with respect, to their. applicability to school effectiveness.,4,.-.---:"

S. if

eb

1144.-

40

68'

.. 1

A- detailed discussion of these models in termtof their theoretical under-

.

,/

o

school Effectiven-esrs-

67

pinnings, empiricoupport (where, mailable) and implicationi for the4

assessment qif school effettiveneis will follow.

InsertTable Zabout here

The Systems Resource Model

4

Systems-resource models define orianizstians as 'several subsystems inter-

acting with each other (Etzioni, 1960; Katz-4 Kahn, 1978)% Effectiveness is

defined as the degree tp which the subsystems work haimoniOusly to satisfy

needs of constituencies. Cunningham (- 1977) states that the key to effective-,

ness is a balanced distribution of resource$ among the various subsystems, noik

maxi:psi satisfaction for all subsystem needs. Katz and Rahn (1978) write that

the "ultimate justification of an organization's existence and its claim on.

scarce' resources-is its throughput,-its.transfarthation of energy andrterial

into for# and locations valued for reasons and by individuals outside the-or-

ganization. The more the throughput, the better its quality, and the less con-.

suming the transformationrprocess, the more we call the organization effective"t

(1978, p/ 46). 'Uthtman and,SeaPhore (1967), rho alpo adopt an open systems

1

parapet e of-organiza s define effectiveness in terms of- an'organization's

Barg yg'position'or the bility of the organization to exploit its environmeat

in acquisitionof scare and valued resources. Thust the only relative cam-

sons that can be mate etween organizations is.in the. sense of- ability to,%. . * .

..%,' ,,, .

ompete fat,valued resourc s. it'should.be noted that tuchtman and Seashore..

. r$,

(1967)'emphasize "ability" to compete rather than' the measurement of actual.

ether

acquiriition of resources. At is of course difficult to conceive hoW%such'rc.

.. -

"ability" tould be assessed except the acquisition of resburcei; -'s'5-0' .

""r° 1

,1 ,..-

,4 ,. .

...' .

6 9

4 School Effectiveness

68

Price (1972) and others have. argued that the acquisition of resources

is the operative goal of the organization. Katz-and Kahn (1978),, however,

maintainrthat the "throughput" represen.M..the primary goal of the organize..a

acua that h#s been set by' he relevant constituencies of /the organization.

Effectiveness can then be defined in terms of the attainment oe s,these goal-

given certain specified constraints. Therefore, for the practitioner, ito

wouldbe,possible to specify.a single criterion of effectiveness (e.g.,0

rachdevement test scores)* given these specified constraints. 'With.respect

to educational systems, constraints' such as-community characteristics and

pollical,attitudes must be taken into consideration' when Melsuring effec-

tiveness. Barro (1970also maintains that adjustments must be made in

teacher characteristids acrase)districts because such characteristics cannot

be'controlled by administrators. However, is difficult to discern how

factors under the control of administiators° such as teacher recruitment,. .

personnel selection; resource allocation and working conditions would not

,have au, effect on teacher characteristics. ether abvious'conitraints that,

..

.

mayAnflience measures-of AffeCtiveness for ooi systems -are the cheac-

-teristics of the population of students (entry-level), the market for all. ,

school perionnelv the physical facilities available, and.the resources avail-. 't

able Yuchtman and Seashore(1967) would frObably maintain that for school:-

'systems Variables such as tax'base, or percentage of budget repiesent the

,bargaining component of effectiveness and, 4s such, are not constraints on

effectiveneis butorather measures of it. s in their conceptualization,

.

1 1

of,effeCtiveness, a bargaining variable sigh as percentage of total agency-

*.budget might be appropriate for comparisons between two school districts.

D


*69

While there is certainly a goal-orientation to "throughput" With the

. systems - resource model, there is a concomitant concern'for the maintenance

of internal y- today activities and the ability of the organization .to

integrate, (relationships between

Etzioni, 1 5)% Etzioni (1975)

'approach is not the goal itself

its various subsystems (Cunningham, 1977;

writes that the 'starting point for this

but a working model of a social tinit Capable

cif achieving a goal- . . . it is assumed a priori that some means have to

devoted to such non -goal functions as service and custodial activities,

inclUding means eqployedf .orthe maintenance of/the unit itself" (Etzioni:,r '

.-.

1975, p. 135): Tits; it is the systems-resource perspective that considers -'

., .

means aiWell as.eirds in its conceptualization of effectiveness. A pattern

of interrelation's among the varioms! zatidnaisubiystims is defined as

the effectiv#essmodel: In this sense, then,the

resembles the organizational deveicipmedt model, to

systems-resource model

be discussed later, in_

that a seta assumptiqns regarding organizational characteristics dre de-

fined a priori as assumptions predicting or correWed witheffectiveness.0,

# To Katz an d Kahn,(1978) and other ope n system theorists, effectivegess4.s

.-

most,dependent:tstOrganizatiagisefficietcy. Efficiency is critical

because the survival otail'orgsnization is a function of-iti negentropy or

.-the ratio of impoited energy to returned output. Thus., eautput/input

-

ratio of 1.60 would represent'an ideal state of efficiency for a school

system For the practitioner, then, the logical questions to follow from

this conceptualization are: (1) how much output do we get for a given,

input; (2) how much input must we invest to assure a given output; and (3),

° -1,is ,it possible to compare the relative efficiency of two ormpre similar .

71.

school systems ?,

, School Effectiveness

70

°. The outPut/input ratio will-ell us how wellischoolsystem is using

the energy'UnPUts) at its disposal and howmuCh energic investment is re-

, Tilted for a givenunit of output. In an eaUcational sitting, energic in-

vestment.wauld entail such variables as personnel costs, supplies, power,

' facilities,:etc.,(01Dolabghue, 1071). It is in the measurement of.the out-

put variables that problems develop. Very often, simply the number of

students who have passes a.certainlicademic, hurdle orgraduated"is taken.

as the measure of output. With this conceptualizetiOn

be made between twateducational systems that ate ss

, comparisons could

entially comparable-in

i

-terms of input variables with the exception thgt one system maintains 3k

teacher - student class size ratioof 20:1 while ,the others at 30:1. ;Using

an output #ariable'such as the number of -percentage of "successful" graduates;,'. .

.

it is clear that the sy pm. with a 30:1 ratio.is relatively more efficient

Ttthan the other System. While bot systems are operating as degigned,one

ystem is relatively more effiCielit than the other.

Onellew in this notion of efficiea:q when applied to eddeational systle.

is that the relatiVe superiority of the 30:1 system mst be eViden4 only so' 1

long as the output criterion is the sheer number of graduates.

system with higher teacher - student atios also is characterized by highert

Perhaps, the

teacher turnover, absenteeism, or lower student achievement and satisfaction.A

Thus, we once again return to the old "criterion problemwidth regard to the

measurement of efficiency. If constituencies can agreeoe,a-2

ropriate oit

put measures and energic inputs capLbe,1reliably and adequately measured,

then efficiency would, be azeAppropriate operationalization of school;

72gb.

,

4.

4


71

Ns.

1

effectiveness. There is general agreement, however, that the measurement of

2 v.

both input and output variables is inadequate aild the very inadequacies of

this measurement will tend to reduce the efficiency Of school systems. As

decisions are made in areas such as resource-allocation on the basis,of data,

to the extent.that the datitare in aalid or limited in scope, so also will

be the decisiomorm-le.am exa1 er1C while few educators' would argue with the

. "contention that the lawef the teacher-stUdent.ratio, the greater the student

aChievemeht, empirical studies in this area for the most part are not sup-

portive. Ranushek (1977) writes that "almost unifoimlyi educational produc-.

.

tion models -show no Consistent or Significantrelationship :between achievement411

and expenditures per pupilTeiilier instructional expenditure or total ex-

'penditurer (p..47).

5

Current attempts to refine the measurement of organizatiOnal input and

output variables have focused on some form of dollar criterion'to'be assigned

to.yariables'previously unaccounted for. As mentioned earlier, Li14rt (1967)

Yi and Flamholtz (1974) havedapplied-humin resource accounting prino4p1es in

order to assign dollar estim ates. to input variables such as employer exper-.

44 fence, selection, training, etc. However, there have been few attempts to

apply cost accounting principlei t outpUt variables in an open systems

Context (Popham, 197'5). In Farsoirs (1956) analysts of social structure,. a

. .

schoolsystem's.functionseffectiveneescanonlybeconsideredinterdS.4., .1

-

of its contributioi to the_ functioning of the next higher order of social .

,."

..,,. .

structure. Thus, cost accounting principles could conceivably be applied, .

to school output, measures such as "drop out" rate? percentage of studehts ,

4

who go on to college or. technical schoOl, percentage of dnemplo6d graduates,

73.

z

I


72

etc. Such output measures would gdt closer to answering the question of

'hourWell the organization-is doing for the suprasystem' ,(Katz & Kahn, 1978,

p. this qionceptualization of effectiveness, there 'are many sim-

ilarities between Parson-'s <1956) functional model and Katz and Kahn's

systems-resource model. However, Seashore and Yuchtman (1967) take the

position that such an 'Approalch neglects the independence' of the organization

andsits.exerdise of choice. With their perspective, mp;Imization of return

to the o4mization underlies the measurement of efficiency. However, to

use a measure such as percentage of total agency budget in order to make

rilativecpaparisons between school districts ignores the ramifications of

budget increase's obudgets of other suprasystdit agencies. Also, itwould,

tie virtually impossible to control for all extraneous factors.that could

(e.g., general state of the economy tax base). Fur-affect such a measure

thermore, in viewing

the comMunity, local government, etc.), it'is probable that one particlar

a school system in the context of its suprasystem (e.g.,

level in the school system hierarchy may have incentives that prove to be

disincentives At another level within the hierarchy. For example, he "cost

savings" r d by one level (e.g administration) may b0 represented as

Itcost/A idances4" to a level above the school board (see also the disquision

On cost- benefit models)-.

i-

. In summary. the major. problem vOth the systems resource model as-,

.

applied to school systems effectiveness is the development of an acceptable -----: .

standard for efficiency that take into Consideration the interaction of

sdhool.iystem effects with effects'of.other institutional subsystems within-

the organization's suprasysten fo'Donogbue, 1971).. The problem is compounded,

.*


(

73

by the faCtthat issues related to effiCiency such as resource aIlocation

areLclosely linked to community poli4calprocesses. Research indicates

(e.g., 40.1egrin, 1965i 1968).that in matters of reiource.allocation,

, 0

issues specifically related to education redtkiye lower Priority than

matters related to economic and governmental affairs. Pellegrin (1976)

O

4n ° .

discusses how the community elite" spend little of theirtime and effort(

'ruminating over educational issues and yet they make lecisions 'that aften..

t..,

dirkctly affect educational outcomes. In education, the most common measures

of efficiency are student/facility ratios, costs per faculty member; costs

-per student, and costs per square footage of space (Bowen & Douglas, 1971;

Cameron, 1078; Sartmark,..1975, Meeth; 1972; O'Neill, 1971)-. .14111e thesee-

.operationalizations are certainly important in terms of indicating efficient

uses of resources, they bear little r4 sre.ationship to operatiOnalization of,r

the effective use of resources (f.e., producing outputs). Pincher (1972)'.

concludes that it is impossible to.assess both efficiency and effectiveness

,in education using the same criteria and that the emphasis sRould be on *

measures of effectiveness. The preoccupation of systems - resource models

With the measurement of efficiency make the modelllargely inappropriate for

educational systems.

The Functional- Structure Model

The functional structures model is probably best represented by Pennings'

(1975) "structural contingency" Idel which states that organizational struc-,

tura is in part a function of,environment and technology. The environment

is the many parties with which the organization interacts (e.g., parefits,

students, teachers, and,tax payers). Technology refers to the organization's

)

P`

)

fr

.

a

mode of operatida

This model proposes

e

yd. Q q '

interaction of'releviit. ,

I

'OP

School'Effectiveness

74,

the Way it converts its inputs into outputs).

f

t organizational effectiveness is a;function of the

technology an the organizational strdCture. Un-

,fortdaately,,the model lacks both a methodology for, assessing mast environ-

, .mental factors and-hipotheses tlit would clearly pertain to educational

,

systems.

While'many of the internal structures that hale been studied in the1_

context of the functional- structures model (e.g., :decentralization, 'special-.

izatiaap forOalization) have ;also.been considtred'for educational systems,

none, have been closely linked to mea1ures of schoOl system effectiveness1

(Averch 1972;31anushek, 1977;.Madaus et al:,1980; Mohr, 1973).

Commenting on the ,s tore research conducted in esipcational settings, Mohr

(197.3) has stated that few hypotheses dan, be found with regard to how cer-t

.,.

taltestrictural input's will affect school outpdts. He states further that

factor analytic research involviag'a variety of input variables has been

largely fruitlesi.

'A major limitatiomi of the model as applied to. . . . f .

-_ *

school systems is that:it has been principall..ccracerned- with the satis-,-

,.....:. i

factionLof/basid.need% that should probably not be tie, focus of a motel of.tsit, .

;..

school system effectiveness,(e.g., the securityof.the.school-system id

vrelation: to Its environment; the continuity of policy-making). Fuit rmore,

A

''the evaluation criter1.4Eor this model kale most often involved pr, , .

.% ...

the acquiSition of resources such as money; peoRli, or goods, and investment,

,- ) .,..

in the' istem taibugh'goods or peoplegtTningflam,-1977;0_,Selzurbk, 1953)

.

i

c . .- - ..

criteria whiCh are,not particulaly applicable to public school systeds.d

.

..,1

a n

-

a

tr

\J


75.

Grayson (1972), discusses the need.to implement an educational technology

which involves curriculum design and redesign based on a priori criteria.

While his discussion resembles Penning's notion of the structural- technological

,interaction, the approach more cloiely resembles the systems-resotirce perspec-

tive proposed by Yu

others.

Miskel, Feverly, and S wart:(1979) maintain that there have been three

common deficiencies in res rch on educational structure variables-and

school, outcomes. The f t eficiency is that the Majority of empirical

studies look at only a portion of the theoretical domain.- Two examples

0 W and Seashore (1967), Katz and Kahn (1966), and

are Miskel,and Gerhardt (1974) Who studied the relationship.between,perceived

bureacratic structure and teacher satisfaction and Anderson and Tissier

(1973), who studied the effects of school decentralization on student aspira-O

tions. Miskel et al. t1979) state that there have been few attempts to

.

study effectiveness in any multidimeniiaoal_framework where multiple criterias

k -. ,s ._

are related to structural or technological Variables.

The second deficiency of the literature on educational structure ac-

cording to- Miskel et al. (1979) is the preponderance of conceptual or theo-1

.

riticai'papers that have a total abtence of empirical data to support their

posizions. ites (1971) and Manson,(1975) are cited,as examples of such a,

deficiency.

pie third deficiency has to do withthe_unit of analysis that has been

used in much of0%the iesearch. Many studies uge the individual as the unit

< 4. . ' * _, .

of analysis in research on variables such as decentralizatiOn, formalization,.

"bureacratic structure, and climate (e.g,liirenberg, 1977;.0detola et.al.,


76

1972). Hiskel et al. (1979) maintain that technological and structural

variables of school systems are more appropriately studied from the pet-

spective of.the.schi or the district. If school processes are the focus

of the research, the unit of analysis should be the larger organization.

. Hannan, Freeman, and Ileye0W5) make a similat argument in their critique

of Bidwell and Kasarda's (1975) study of scllool systems' effectiveness.

Hannanlet al. conten d that the use of.a unit .of analysis with data aggre-

gated'above the theoretically app priate level can lead to the "inflation

of errors of mispecification" (p. 139).

To illustrate their argument, they reconstructed a data set comparable

to that used by Bidwell and Kaaarda to illustrate the manner in which the

unit of analysis robled can lead to overestimates of.

the impact` of, organi-

zational variables on effectiveness (as defined by achievement test scores),.

Their reanalysis suggests that the effects of organizational variahIes.are

smaller than that reported by Bidwell. and Kasarda (1975)..1 Such "finding

is certainly not, ustificatipn to exclude organizational vaiiableal rom

effectiveness-models, but does suggest that careful attention needs to be -/7.

paid to the unit of analysis, as recommended.by Minkel et al. (1979). It

Nshould be pointed out, however, -tfla aggregated data does not always produce41,

inflated correlations as suggested y Hannan et a7:. (1975). Aggregation can

is fact result in more unreliable data than individial data (e.g., where

ihere4s substantial variability in abilities or attitudes within a given

work unit; Schneider,'1978). Thui, in the selection of a unit of analysis,

the practitioner should be concerned with the interpretationai compatibility44=1444

17etwien t14 statistical and the theoretical models selected for study.

78

{School Effectiveness

S.

77

In a well designed study relating structural variables to multiple

evaluative'criteria, Miskel et al. (1979) employed the school as the unit ofV

analysis in their investigation of the effects of several structural and

process variables on multiple outcomes of perceived organizational effective-,

Jnews. Adapting the theoretical perspective of Matt (1972), Miskel et al..T.

\4 (1979) defined effective-schools as "those schools perceived to produce

"products and services in greater quantity, with better quality; to show."

flexlbility; and to exhibit adaptability to a greater extent than less

effective-organizations" (1979, p. 99),

The three dependent variables used in the study were loyalty, job

satisfaction, and an overall measure of school effectiveness. In previout

research (e.r., Hoy, Tarter, & Forsyth, 1,978; Ratsoy,.1973), teacher

loyalty and satisfaction had been shown to be related to group productivity,.

Miskel et al. (1979) adopted the position taken by Campbell et al. (1974)

who believe effectiveness is best assessed by perceptions of relevant con-

stituencies. Thus, perceptions,of school system effectiveness we -re recordedAt

from teacpers At 125 elementary and secondary schools. Much like the func-) -

.tional -structures research by Pennings and his associates (1975, 1976), anti

ra indepen denc, variable of interest was organizettional structure (definedas

the relationship-among different roles that'aie created to achieve educa-ble

oals. Variables such-as stratifica tion, complexity, and centraliza:)

rim fain this general category,of structure. In addition, Miskel et

(19 studied several organizational process variables in a framework

compatible with Likert's (1967) organizational development model (see below).

This model is concerned with factors such as ltader behavior, motivational

79

teSchool, Effectiveness

78

forces, and interaction-influence'patternsi. Miskel et al. used Likert's

(1978) Profile 'Of a School questionnaire to-assess these factors. Ns

1,

With results that,.correBorate nan-educaxional repearch in a'functional-,

structural framework (e.g.,-11 gs 1)975), results indicated'that effec-r" . ,

..

.,..

tine schools areperEiivea as having higher professional development and..

. ,.

being more participatiye, decentralized, and formalized around rules..

Miskel et al: (1979) fonclued that environmental contingencies (e.46g., coot-

munity characteristici) can, have a strong impact on outcome variables. Re-

suits supported research by Hoy Newland, and Beazovsky (1977) who found

that centralization reduces Morale but that increased formalization increased

teacher satisfaction. Findings regarding participationwere also in line

with.predictions from Likert (1967) on System Q managerial style (see below).

As stated. above, the,selection of a unit of analysis in studies of

school productiO;)gunctions or effectiveness is ciitical in terms of the

I.

interpretation of the results. The issue is uSuaIly'discussed in terms of

the use of aggregate data to mike inferences about individuals (e.g.,

t,

Morgenstern, 1963; Robinson, 1450), Directly related to this issue is the,

.

, -.. _

assumption a researcher makes with regard'to the independence/interdependence

of observation in the study, Research on educational production. functions,

1for example, his 9onsistently aSsumed'the independence of observations when

statistical, inferendes are made (e.g., Hanushek, 1977; Law, 1977). Glick

and,Roberts (1978) discuss this issue'witA respect to =for theories of

human motivation such as expectancy andtequity theory. The problem is

treated in the context of bivariate analysii Of individuals versus' group's.

of ihdividual'sholding.all other important,dharaCteristics constant: They

80

School Effectiveneis

79

state empirical verificatiob must determine the degrea,ofinterdependence.

.

of the "units" in a study. Thus, in the educational context, the extent to

which the observation-of anachievement level of Hl. given studiht is depen-._

dent on the achievement level of other students,, and the extentoto which a

c3lassroom's achievement level is affected by Ala classroomS must be empir-

ically determined in order to properly partition the variables under study.

Cronbach (1976) and Firebaugh(1978) point out tlht the aggregated &instruct

is usually recognizdd to be separate from the individual conbtruct with dif-

ferent assumptions regarding killtedents-and consequences. ThUss for example,.

school effectiveness is not the same thing as individual performance.

Group scores (e.g., scores aggregated at the classroom, sc*1, or

district level) are considered appropriate when a group score isused to

pTedict some individual variable. .If the group score can, however, be broken

dawn into individual scores, the use of group boundaries provides fat the

partitioning of within-and between-group portions of the variance. This is

particularly important in breaking down classroom` effects from, for example,

school effects. In terms of the partitioning process) there are several

suggestions (e.g., Farkas, 19741 Glick & Roberts, 1978; Kraemere1978). is

far as predict individual student achievement, however, (the most commonwok

A

'dependent measure in production function and School effectiveness research),.

the partitioning,processthat makes the most sense favors'interpretation of

the U11001i021 amount-of variance .at the individual dhit of analysis .(see the

arguments made by Freeman, i978 and Hannan et al., 1976).

Gliqk apd Roberts (1978) state,that as definition of group boundaries

pis necessary.whenevei there is a hypothesis as to the interdependence of a

8 1 /

10,

0

set of individual scores. The ext

coeTeients abiesed can only be

Diana' effects" .(see4Werts & Linn,

re*

3:1

t.,,, .

ual variables can be estimated, itA

leveliOik analysis as! 4or example,

aisesOng,the -relative contributions of school

outcomNItthe group boundarieimult beti

e . :

4

1.- I

--"SSchool Effectiveness. ..... .%

80

t to which regression an correlation .

4determined if.estimates of "composir

101) can be made. eesthese cortex=

* impossible to ke, inferences acrQss

n Bidwell and

specif

garde (1975).; In

.

related variables on student

the extent ofttheir

dependelce estimated, and, if possible, 'the direction

\ ;c.Wed between dilps..*

.1.

of .ausality hypothe-*'

4In additilntothe concerns expressed above, several authors' (e.g.,

Bidwell, 1985k ii)ht,41192,34Pellegiin, 1976) havklcomMented on theaaCk of

.3)

.the4

'godd' instrnmentiiaW stuc4ds of school aructural and t ecineiogical var-

tables, One, example f good measurement if, tfs?und in Bisho# and 'George -

1975) ,who developed a tructural Pra ties Quattionnaire"-to measure an

organization's characteristics.-'Tes-Anestionnaire hai been used as the

measure of schbol butegucracy in severtiestUdies (Miskel et al., 1979;

Murphy, Bishop, & George,'1975). However, for the most pdt, research lit.0

'.education that most clearly, che the functional-structurv,model of effec-

tiveness is plagued by the same problems-of design and mettodology d4tcussed

by Penninigs 11975). While the fundtianal-structures model #selflooks

promising as a model of school system effectiveness, more research, utilizing,

;uipitiyariate -designs and largefunits of analysis, (e.g.; school or ,district), ,,

a

such ,as the researCh con4ucted by M%el et al. (1979), is'needed WOre a-41!.11146°'.e. 4

-

-definitive statement can be made on 5e appropriateness of the functional-

.4*'structures model for. school systems.

-

(4,

School Effectiveness`

The Managerial Prr

,./- . '11/4-. The, managerial process model opirationalizes an organization's, eff4E- _ ,- . ..,4. ,.4

tiveness within.the context of abilities' to. perform 6ertainmatagsrl.itl. func(

ttona. '-roF exampie; the- elite= to wIlich'a 'principal or 'school: administratot6 I ... d

. ,.5 5 4

--. effeCttiely,performs the foun'dtione of deciSiOn L,king.,- budgeting, or planning' .;..

),.. . "::: . . .would be 4:cominon4eAdarcie strategy'. 'As denoted by its _title, the focus of , '

this model is_ on,'the adilnistritar's, 'or manager's, effectiveness, parttou- ..

( ,' -., .

- 0 .- . :

.larly in. integr ating indiviaual goats with organizational goals. Thus, =,

. . i/ 0li.

.14asures of employee 'job satisfatiion,' motivation, pAoductiyity, and beliefs. -

are the most likely dependent measures for this model. Some discussioni of./ 4 \ -,... - % .,.'this model 'Sound very, muCh lake discussions of' Likert 'a principle,:of suppor-0.: 7-

s

five relationships" pert, '1961) Predictors 'of managerial. success in.decieion-making, __etc. through moti/ational or attitudinal measures are likelyindependent .variable.. of interest. ,

";-I' 0 . .k

. Reiman,(1975) studied managerial attitudes toward ,"critical others"i . , a,-.who cou3:d.,Potentially affect,an organization. Thii research is of of tbe.

4 ' . . ' . ° -1' %; .---,- ; -1-14-better representations of thelmanagerial.procees model. t ,His blic Values, x . .. .

of, Managemenc".questio=aire was ,developect to stud}" there tioeShip between

public- sector managerialeattitudes -and effeciiiienessvas measured 'by perfor-

mance. .*Scores Oti the questionnaire were found to be ,significattly 'related.

4t .Lto. groisP:perfo.rMance"Mdasuree. Wiale several writers 'ip the educational.

, -take reference to the 'crucia l nature of' the principal's_ finictions and I

4011 3.# esmisider thant the context' of managerial theori, 'there haNe treen" few

_,),. .' -; -.. 0 4,pub4itheii attebpte' to eispirically study ,the relationship between attitudeslk V ' . , ' . 1 '\of'!'f' tipielis and' educaiibnal outcomes (e.g.., Barro, "1'970; Dter,1,970;, Heil,.

, . .A

',47.41

o

1


820,

. _1962; Radnor, 1974; Silberman, 1970; Stanchfield, 1976). Empirical research

010

1

in the educational setting has concentrated on. variables such as principal' ,..-1-0

'e.

0.

v)-.

race4,age, sex, educational attainment, tenure, salary, and'full or part,

11

time positiOts as. they relate-to various outcome. measures (e.g., student

gain score's; Averch et al" 1912; Coleman et 'al.,* 11)72; Hinushek, 1977).. . .0/

.general; faCtors related'to the principal'have been found to contribute9 a 'airly trIvial'amountgof.variarCe in the4o46memeasurea. HareOjob-

refater variables within both the ability and thellkitudinal'domminamOuld'

-seen to' "be e-a richer source .for predicting outcome variables: -Far example, -°it '

.

Ehhopay and Weitzel (1969) concluded-that effectiveneis was a result ff the

-additive .CotlAination of productivity orientation, planning, reliability and1,, initlativls related to managerial functions... Reliably -masured ability

.

7 -1

:and attitudinal lariables for principals thatbare directed'at these 'issues6

would seem to have a far greater,potetti4 for predicting edtcetional out,

. .

1 .. .) \comes, 0 .

d ' 3 A

Other researchers have lookld at school administratois in their managerial

4

4capacities .aud discusied problems i'(adiiinistrator,teacher\ielationships and ).,

their effects on effecti...;

vIness (e.g:, Cicourel, 19(75;" Corwin, 1970;Bdinbush. ,

. _.... ..'-'

.... .. 1

.-.' *.ii Scott, 1975). Corwin (1970),7fOr example, found that perceptions of a. .. .

..-,lack.,of admin4trative bacuillgv conflict over students,. and lack Of authority1' 2 - ,

. ir . . ,w ..

resulted-inlayer teacher moral. *NO attempt made to relate this to15.J /I, .

.....stmdent _Output measures, however. Bidwell and Kaiarda:(1975),found that-- N'

.

administrative intensity depressed tedian.leveis of achievement in .eir-. . .. .

,

-.

*tudy Colorado' school districts; -Their.exlariation was, that a

trative laitaasityqaa Measirces6by-atalf-teacherratiod),merely diverts h

'9

o

r -°

school Effecti venessP

t,83

resources from teaching'and Other staff fundtions feIsted to teaching. ,

Their results have never been replicated and the practicaAsignificance of

the administrative intensity effect ha's been questioned (Alexander & Griffin,

1975).

_ parro (1970)' probably comes the closest to a conceptualization.,of school

system effectiveness

,that planning-pro

that is more output

in,terms of a manageria1,process model. He recommends

gramming= budgetth method Oftmanagement be implemented

ted than present s7stems:This approaCh,is presented'

in an accountability-framework such as that pre.sented by Dyer (1970). Sim-?(?

ilarly, Radnor (1974) implicitly endorses a more,systemsroriented, input-, . .,44 . _.

mo.output del to replace the pervisive "management by excevtion" style.. ..:

-- Ineoter discussiohs ofeducationUl management (e1g., Yee,'1973);- ..

.

systemsmanagement models are presented which, While somewhat similar to the. ,4

I4,

'0msnageriaDproCess.models.3(e.g.; Cyert,a March, 1963),.appWar to be a closer .

'-match with the systems-resource &deli discuss& above (e.g., Georgopoulos &,Tan-/-7---s .. ..,

enbaUm, 1957): The managerial process motel iS,.however,more focused on in-::

. J. ,

. .. .

Weigating.thi6ireeteratiCs,.1;047iorineeff ectileUess ofadministratOrs..

There is an increasingAerest in the iimpdriince of educational manage-'

ment)rw traditianaloutput measures,' as evidenced by the attempts to

'selection prociurs,for'schol Administi4tors and prinalpals. Ford Ar 1 $ "'

the Netionil'Associetion of SecOndary school Principals hai.developed a cod-.,.!'.

, .

.

I'' .' ' .,N.C..,. . '. i , - At

1 tent prinCi s".(geresrp49774,,ThS prOgram attempts tOAde4tify performancet, .

o odi

prihensiVe assessment center to,aid-in-the selection ofvprin aepals and ass4.1-** '1

. .4°-'

-a-

it tfiiisseiiieit 'Waxer thai.istelited eo-c-

.

performance as administrators.

A distinction, however, an; :igtawn St thins Point. , .

; .

85

.

etween vanagerial be or 0"

,

,

4-1 A.',.

"-

*-elA

1'=

o. Schoor:Effectiveness,

8411

ti

1.performance; 'and effectiveaesa..\ Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler and Weick (1970)

4. state that behavior' is simply what people do in the course,

of working)e4.,.

. ..

-diCTing a letter, or directing a'subdidinate, etc.), while performance, is.

. - ..

bghavior that ilas beeh evaluated "(Measurea in terms of its contribution to

the goals of the org,lizatiOn. y effectivenesi refkrs to some over--

all index of organizational outcomes or which7a,eindivedual is at leastk

partially responiible, suCh'as achievemen test -scores, teacher satisfaction,

turnover, etc.

Since the measure of managerial effectiveness is one or more steps'

1 0

removed krai what the individual actually does, managerial performance is.-.

'4,likely to be more,e'astly4redictable t. han maUageriaLeffec-effectiveness, asper-

fO4Mancp depends directly upon ianaieria behavior andilts not a ;f.,additional liactors not'under-the control of -;the indi real cioecon-

Indcle'Vel of students)..: 'Preliminary results from theNASSP asses

center research supports this posi ion. :Therefo e, it ikhould-be poi4ted..'.

4

out that a ;Umber of criterion measures that have been Used in the past to1

predict,school adminisraro; Performance.havepri5 -tcrhe insensitive toII,

actual measured effectiveness due fq situational ,off boderatihg variables .

tat can - affect effectiveness (e.g.','C4eman, 1972). Additionally, the mama-'4

ger's job.is multifaceted 195§)-such that different manageriai

behaviors may result in the same emaaakerial PAfformance rating. Also,

particular managerial behavior may be evaluated as being highly-effective

a

ecording to-,9nei criterion, yet ineffective.usitg.another standard. See,,

. . . ,

ffOr example,- Beshers' (1972) did4ssion of;conflicttng administratpre gbals

in ad tion. The question -we need to aik,inerms of the'educator-manager,

rt I

,,

C.)

(" P

g or

ipussed.by Campbell et a.1. (1970), is:. .

-.

What are the varieties or combinations. .

_ .

stances, personal characteristics, .and

School Effectiveness.

85

ofqorganizational circum-r

behavior patterns pat

are'likely td.be perceived as effective managing?00

.

Predictibly,s

the next ,question' would be: itirat,4is, it that is perceived.

saw

.as being "effective" management ineducation? England (19,66, 1967) in sur-* .

. MlyimAmore than4

1000 managers throughoift the country, dete d the goals,

that were perceived as being both important and highly indicative of success-,

Eul.managing. TOpping.thilist were the'Objectives of organizational effi-

ciency,cienci, high productivity and profit maximization. ,Therefore, it is reasOn-.

able to define'` ffective management in terms of orgegzational outcomes

SeashoreW4YUchtman,1961):

Wi'define effective-managerial job behavior as any set of

managerial actionsYelieved tole optill for identifying,. . .

\ain't-in:tiering Ins d.utilizing both internal\and external resources

toward sustaining, over .the long term, functioning of the organi-

zational unit 'for which, a manager has some degree of responsi--,.. ..

_ bility (p..344). . .

's 4,a 4

6,

62

EffectiVe managers, then,.optifize human, and.fih'ariCial,resources4

..,

4

0 in sustaining the operation.of'the organization.* This operational definition-. .% %

\ .''relievea us of the\evaluation-f traits-tAi'are generally used eb describe

,1

'.-r:

C'

.

_the successful or unsuccessfniadministrator,lianager and allOWs'us to con

.

ce_

ntrate on the tasks p hand.-,Unfortunately, in the educational contexta\

-., . 1

\ a' \,

"there ip.12i le empirical support for principal gerformince-educatioel..

...\i' .

-outcome relarlonship.. , -

\ r

.

IJ

4

k

-"Staniar' (1967)° lists three' methods commonly used to study. -what manage

do on'theitAbbs: An observer may record tat a manager does, the manager

may keep his awn records or diary of-his activities during a workday,.or the-a

manager may be asked merely to estimate how he spends'his time, using a pre--

.1't

School Effectiveness-

86.

Pared checklist of job duties or behaviois. NuMerous studie ase utilized, \

.0, \

these 4proe0is, with varying but compatible results (Burns, 1957; Carlson,

1951; Horne & Lupton, 1961). One of the elirliest jobNiescription checklists. .

.

used to delineate the responsibilities of ma4ge ersonnel was ieported, .1 ,

by.Gulan (1953): Cluster analysis resulted in five ar slf responsibility,

nam4r: 3; labor retatiditi; 2) pethods.and rates; °3i maintenance.

of records;

'/I.4)\persannel,selectian and placement; and*5) meetin: and coping with day to

'day operational prOblemt as they arise. These resplts-clLely match the

,

,. .

regi:lts of jobanalysis.,Of school a6intstrators(e.g., Heisey; 1977; Yee,/

. . a . ,

'1975).. `. .. ,

fie type of activity involved inatrandam intervals during the day is 10 ,

recorded: While this approaChlhas been used to infer the determinants of

`managerial effectiveness (Kelly,'1964), 'O'Neil and kubaitY (1959) were able

'':.conclude from their resea Ch that to mechanistic. recording of job ac-'-.

. -* .

..tiviti isincatia4le afire crucial differences betiteen more and less

e active formes. Thus,,,. fob the practitioher,-the utility df this approach

is using effective ad*nistrativepefdrmance is questionably. , '.,

P' .. 1

. A :

,....

.

............;

..0

e critical,.

liacideitt method -;d viiopes4by Flanagan- (1954) i#, hoLver,1 ,

, . --

f

... s

s'''. ' 4 Y

er I. 44-mxr pT rO mi: iing.- t. eChiiL. q i fo: r'sa' m' plin administrative behavior. This

approach' requires reports-_ 1 aer4ers ofthe thingsthat managers'. . -.. . k

.: :,--* ' '--.

\t...f . 4'

s".

.

t.,

,

'1.1K

)

-...........0

aralkdo that

%ire especially effective or

.

ecinefftive in acc skiing parts of .

1

.

14

. ._ .

jobs*. After anumber of such,behavioial incidents are.collected, the ab -1

stracted categorized incidents are, combined to form a composite picture of0

job essentials. With'continuous recording and importing of critical incidents,'< 4.

this iechttque can reveal the_dynatic attributes of a particular managerial

.

School 'Effectiveness

4.87

job, and sinde'it focuses on managerial performance, i.e..what the manager

actually dos', 'can be expected to yield'behavioral.information uncomplecaeed.

by situational variables..

Several investigators (Anderson & Nilsson, 1964;

Kay, 1959;` Williams, 1956) have used this to advantage, deminstrating a high

degree of inter-rater reliabilitrin developing nonambiguous categoty defi=.4

nitions, based on critical incidents. In seeking to establish the reliability

of inciden;,classificatIon and organization, Smith.and'KentiAll (1963) sug-

geSted that behavioral incidents be'retranslatedk those actually using thet , - , .

scale to determine thoselincidents that can be reliably'assigned to a partic-r,,

Ular dimensional category, while elizinatinrstatecants and dimensions that.

fail to delineate highly specific and non-ambiguous-job behaviors that cano . "

be reliably used to!-develop a final set of job specifid behavioral scales.

Bernardidand SMith (1981) have, argued the approach haa potential for alle-..

\

..-miating common errors in ie formance measurement. .4 .

In the educational lit rature no studies Could be, found which Used.6

-"Iii, *14. '

critical incident :mehodology, retranslatt9t, or'detailed obseri-ationalpro-,,

,I .t.: .,

.

Cedures to identify-critical teak components for the educa/ tional edpinistra-,,,,'. -- i

%..-- .___.,,,

V" ,for: While pese'approaChes ate crtainly'iMprovementS.over 497,trait-..

.,

,

oriented neasurenedt'of manage rial individual-differencesthere art no1

hat:such. refinea measu#melat strategies

71;0, .

guar tees 1 leadtp the, .

,

/*-4011

;. 14

S

4

I

,

$

111 'School Effectiveness. .

88

establishMent of a Stronger rellionship between edudator-managemper-il.

formance and outcome measures such as achievement test data:- Certainly we. .

1 ,

can predict'a better Chalice for significant relationships between effective-. . * ir. ,

ness and admitistriiPr or principal managerial. parameters as measured above

° ihari with characteristics such as race,,age, tett:re; and salary that. have, .

beepLsed mOsefreqtettly in the past.C , ,

.

, ,

Gross and Herriott (1965)0Ldevelopedthe'"Executiveprofessiotal Lea-

4drehip" '(EPL) questionnaire for elementary school principals. While the.

1

measure was riot based on any o the,methodologies discussed above in. .w , ,0

descrihpg the' manager-principals' job, scores on the EPL were found to be,

related tpteacher morale, teacher and student learning.

-Hilfiar (1969) found thatsores on the EPL correlated politively with

eperceived levels of social support ,andsystem innovativen t . Teachers were-, a.

,/,eiked on-the'EPI, to indigatd the extent to which their principals engaged

c).

. -.in activitieesuch as: teacher's meeting.

a valuable educational,. : _ - .

. . 0 . 4.

aceivity"-f sit-rests teacher; as prof elms:Lima' workers";_"laaa constructive sug-o. - - __

,

,

Ito.gestiotito offer teachers in dealing with their problems."

. .

.

Another measure that attempts to assess the behavidr of a principal is

the profile of a School (POS;*Likert, 1978, see below). In research with

the oneone of the factors, derived in factor anilysis.was libelled "princi--. r

pal leadership" by Miskel et al. (1,79). °The ai ore stated that factor

. . ""4... .

deicriSid'the principal's behavior in terms of supportiveness,-1Nor it-: '.. ... . .

.

,

.: .

-tionoldall-imihesia, and 'interaction facilitation. The focus, of the.

rs.

. .,Immi_dntt* pricipal-tsadher level of interaction, For example* one of .the

,. '.' its 11as,"howoften do you see .your principal's behavior as friendly and.,' t

, . \ lk 4.90 ,

0

6

t

;..

,

4,

'L

ISchool Effectiveness

89

al;

s

a

4,

1V

supportive?" Results from the Miskel et ail, study indicated "princip al4

Leadership" was the best predictor of teaches loyalty tolthe organizatiOn4 . - .

and teacher satisfaction. .

ft ' .

'-- '-*., ..

The Leader Behavior Description QuestionnairS'ALB60"is an. established,..

method forodescribing the behavior of leaders.- While there are no published.4 -

.7

studies relating LBDQ scores of principals to effectiveness measures, Halpin,-,,

(1956) usedthe LBDQ 4 a study of school superintendents. Reipondents4,

were asked to 'c

ceptdons of' the,superintendentis actual behavior and second, bled on their

lete the LBDQ in twcrways: first, according to their per-

expectations how the supecintendentsshould

discrepancies between the actual and the ideal

,--tendents' .Suchodiscrepandies were found to be negatively correlated

behave. Halpin; ound large

perceptions of the superim.-0

with teacher satisfaction. Similar resUlts,havw-beleiofound in other research --

relating, school st'iperOtendeni behavior, to teacher- Satisfaction (e.g., Bidwell,k.

1965; ER/C1 1973r Cuba & Bidwell, 1957).

'It is appareit that managerial process variables for, school administrators,.

.

have bees shown to be,reliably related to several of the "Soft".4criteria used

1

..

to assess organizational effectiveness (e.g., teacher satidfat.ion and loyal.:4

ty). -However, Ng studies have established a link between manazirial behavior,

and- any !hard" criterialtich as e or student outcomes. Therefore,

for the presenkr-the prac,itionerAs_ cautioned not tp,uits, managerial process,.____. . : . -.. . .

itariekles as direct and uneqUi4Ocal'indices of school_system_effectiveness.'4 ...-, ...

.:Ifiursued, research Iito-thq relationship- managerial ind.

, )pe4ormalide iniChOols:should Shed some light-as to t utlity of thip poten-,,... e : ,. .

idal2Y fruitful. **broach. :

rrC

I

The Organizational Development Model


90

The Organizational Development ('OD) model views effectiveness in terms

Of4the organization's problem-solving and renewal capabilities'(Cunningham,

1977),' Utilizing the knoWIedge and intervention techniques of the behavioral

sciences, this,mo4e1:attempts to shape the organizatio structure

climate such that the individual's ability' to satisf7 growth needs is inaxi7

mdzed. It is only when the potential of each member:is.fully'realized theeoe,

the organization .can be asvfmAlly effective.

OD has been called a normative model because it attempts to prescribe4 I

1

--A

41 therequisite,conditionunder which an organization will be effective.

(Steers,..1976). These conditiOni.would include: 1) being,awareof, open

to, and, reactive to change: 2).searching for new methods and forms of or-A

ganizing; 3) having an optimistic view of its members - self-actualizing and

trussing; 4) seeking, insure the,satisfaction of its members since they

are -thy reason for the %rganization's existence; 5).having open communication ;,.

.

and 0) confronting and dealing with conflict directly without personal -r .....'

1

1.

.-_,,_references..

. -. a .

', .

.

OD; as can be seen, has to.do with \tbe I

1

component of the organiza-

advt. It Shjes many features with 4ie mana rial ProceSs model just des-44

. .

.

"I . ..41

1

cribed. Both models examlne.re behaviors Of:individuals in organizations;.. .-.

,

t

and bOth-Models'focus'4on the individual!Spereeptions-of and reactions to. . ,.

..-...:, the managerial Processes Operating Eurthermore,both asspme that improvie-

., .-::., mient_in.the informal organizition'will result iaa more

0,. Sion (Cunningham, 1977). However, unlike'other system approachea, dD seldomSW k

r L ,

mentions goal outcomes.' If such things as pro4t and -turnover are mentioned,,

effective'

9 4.

y tt


91

1.4

it all, it is in a fairly unsyitematic way and only after much discussion

about such employee-oriented factors as increased individual openness,

better communication, grater individUaliself-actualization, a?d other,

indicators of what,IscOnsidered to be-aIlealthy system (Campbell, 197#

from the individual:s perspective.` No..mention, however, is made,of.the. .

,

students', Patents', or commvity's perspectives., . /,i.

to 4 I '-.t..-The OD model only assumes that if an organization (e.g.,, school

.

system) can achieve the.lis6of end states that Aefine a healthy systglat.

1.

(e.g.,. Beckhard, 1969), it will be effective as an organization and Will

,be optimally equipped.to carry out its mission(s). owever, the model

makes no mention of what the midEdon is', or how the organization attempts

to achieve it

Typical of an OD model is the attempt to prescribe the requisite con-., I-

ditions Under which an organization! will be\effective, withoUtnention of

a rational_Or enipi defense of criteria as measures of effec-.

.Tiveness: The OD model assumes organizational effectiveness without ever

metsUring`it. .

The OD model is related conceptdally and empirically to the literature

.--.- *,...

on orgamizitional climate in this respect.. Oig,zational climate has been .....

1

described'as lie restil*of.the transaction beAween individual members, with

N.

.

their individual needs:, abilities and goals, and the organizational structure- .

0(Campbellscet al., 19/4; Schieider, 1980). It reflects the strength of the

prevalent values, norms, behaviors and attitudes of the organization. Organ'.

iatidnal climatebas been, studied rather extensively. in the field of educa-

Numerous'climate measures have been developed for eduCational environ-

C

-,

,

-School Effectivenes

92

a

beati, the most frequently used being Stern's College-Ch*racteristics'Index;,

Pace's Colisge and University Environment Scales, Astop and Hailand4s'Environ-

0 0mental' Assessment Technique P ervin .Transactional Ahalys is of Personality

and Environment, and Halpin and Croft's Organizatiolal Climate Description.....

.

-Questionnaire (Campbell et al., 1974). The OrganiaatiohalOlimate Descrip-,

. . -

, \.),

tion Questionnaire (OCDQ) (Halpin &'Croff,1962) is'one'af the few climate.

. -. ,.,,L.

measjes that has lookedspecifically at the'-climate of elementary schools.

...

t-i 1.-, - :

This-instrument measures responses to descriptivestatemeats about peef

(teiCher) and principal behavior. Fourilf.its eight scales, tap teacher per-

k ceptims.of ical peer grdtp behavior and the remaining four*scalesassess, -,\

w',

.

perceptions of the behavior qfprincipalk in their interactions with. , .

Results from the cicbil are interpieted in reference to ax "Openness vi. Con-. .. ,

trolled" continuum. Theoretically, aay.school can be placed on such a con-. .

,

tinuum depending on its Characteristic-pattern of internal social behaviors,

The practical importance .of climaii research in education has suffered

however, because,ih general it has not attempted to measure school

)effectiveness. Hdch-like the OD_ it only assumes effectixeness. Fur-

thermore, there has been virtually no attempt torelate the limited research1,

a...,,

on school.climates.fo vast research on organizational climate (S

1980). ire

I 0Radnor (1974) has discussed early applications f OD in ducation and

finds that; for the most part, schools 'do not perceiveany need for improvement

inkorgani;arionai fonCtioniag..Numerous-exaTPlescof ia:fatedxQD interven-

tions can be cited whtch started' in aclimateiwhere participants did not64

perceive a great need for change. .These studies most often Uie,:employe.. .

611 eider,

94

4

\ 0

9; School Effectiveness

,

attitudinal measures to assess change as a function of the intervention.

Thus, not ()Ay is the OD'approach plaguedby measurement problems fn terms

of objectives but also ip terms-of perceived needs for such an approach.

One study that fits into the'classical, OD framework found a'significant

relationship between petceptiens of "openness" in the school and job,Satis-

if.iction of the teachers (DiCaprio, 1974) . 'Such data serves as the basis

of some type of OD intervention to facilitate greater "openness" in certain

schools. However, as stated eerlier, there is a paudity of data that re-

lates teacher attituatnnl measures such as job satisfaction to act effective-

1w40ness measures such as student. achieVement,'veachepkturnover,, absenteeism,

etc. .

,

., . .

t .

While there areilifferencest

ia specific characteristics of organizations. .

,

.,

4

that' OD theorists define ak"healthy!' systems; there,arpthree general assump--

,....,- _

tione underlying most4OD approaches.. The most important assumption concerns.the general nature -of man and is best represented by McGregor's Theory Y

(McGregor, 1960). This philOsophy of management states that the expInditure

of physical and mental effort is as natural as play or restand that work

is a source of high, satisfaction. Also, people-Will exercise self-control.1

A S.'4

andvsillf-directioh.inithe service of objectiVes to Whislithey are,commifted.

The second assumption is that organizations must anticipate and cope with a

chanengrcai. Thus, a rigid, functional burea4cracy is outmoded in this. ,

dynamic environment (Bennis, 1969). The final assumption implicit in' the444.1

literature on OD is thatadorganiz

members of She orggamitions -(

.

'.

operationalization of these assumptions is the work, of Staunfield (1976).I) \,

-. ,. J .

exist primarily for the benefit of'

bell ei-al., 1974) : d6e exmpleg4e.a;(',

95 0

8

;

°

Of

r4.

.*"

at

School Effectiven(s

, 94

t.̀He studied the effects of teacher-admiiistrator,interactiv

L

is on elementary°

'..,.°reading achievement. His major- hypothesit was that the greater the parttr .'

.., . -.cipatipn by the administrator in program planniAg anff"41 pporting" teacheae,at

the greater the outcomes. The approach isca close mate0

to French's (1972)

description of a "healthy" system, characterized by hilgh trust and support. .

across' organizational levels,.opekcommunicktion, group responsibt sty 'bi

lik1 f

design and planning, confrontation rather,than avoidance of probl and

frequent tyne4gistic solutions. Staunfield found that such a climate wa

in fact significantly related tofreading achievement.

)-

1 , Another example of an OD approach to education is Harairosian (1975).,,,,,

..

. ._,,,:.

/

.

who reflects the theoretical work of Bennis (1969). Bennis' chara6teritac./

',

'''''' for an effective organization are:. decision-making located' °close.-to the. , /

. 1*

t8

Y ' .,

, -..

sources of info;mation;.a reward system linked to the achievement oforgani-. ,

4 .

.-zatiOnal goals- ;and a support system built into the vertical, organizational .. ,

*I

4

'kr

,bigrardhl°. Mardirosian found that teaches from higher' achieving schools4 'o

1 the state of California perceived stronger sup ort systems and closer rela-, ,'-s.

.

: N: 4. .

e tionships between rewards and goal attainmelit't teachers #am thd low,- '4!7 A,

\ adhievemedt schools.

.

\ .

,

., \ c

°

,. ` ..

:..4.

a-

A final example of a traditional OD orientation is the work 0 Corwin,.;

\(1970), in, study of. educational effectiveness, Hillst4dIr of organize-\

0

. do conflict-in mss'high schoolssa vivid desciiption of-an.'"unhearthy"4,

,system es defined by Beckhald,,(1969): conflicts avoided or supressed;-

. °*Bed c ommunication channels; no -concern for subordinate growth:oi devel":

°tient; and:no formal ferack systems for performance. TeadherS Corwires

,

study ihdicated,thit factors such As peer incompetence, lack Vcupervisari.

.° "

- -.


95

. support; and constricted authority had deleterious effects on their perfor--,,

mane. As with most studies conducted in an OD perspective, however, no

1 actual.performauce or 'effectiveiess-data were collected,

The major shortcoming, then, of the OD models discussed above as applied

to school systems is that they either assumi or ignore a linkage between OD

goals and the more clearly defined, objective goals of school effectiveness

such as student performance. These latter goals are the. very, reason for0

the school system's existence, not the psychological Ygrowth7 of organize-,

tiamalmembers such as teachers, administrators, etc. Auseful moael of

school syStereffectiveness must go beyond an assumptiOn that school systems

ate effective solely on the basis of.teachers having "self-acgualizedu,

developed better communication skills, or higher levels of satisfaction.

The model of effectivenessliaust include both,clear17 stated objectives and

the criteria.,tabeeused in measuring these objectives'. Models'of orgehiza4- '

tiadal, development ivd4.ude4neither of these dimensions and are therefore not

adeclet!te-'es *dela pf school system effectiveness.

The Likert-iSlidel

The Likert-ISR. model Oi,oriaflizatigfial effectienessg(e.g., Likert,

1967) can be dlassiii . 5 1 s 0 e notion

'of shared power or participation,,in decision- making. Thus, there is overlap

between the.Likert-TSR model at.0 the OD models promulgated by Bennis (1966) ,

1'French (1972), Shein (1965), and Beckhard (1969).The me)qr premise of the

.

Likert-ISB[model is that the closer the administration oile school system is.

e..

"Systemtm -System (4", themore effective the system is viewed to be. ' Systdm 4 is,,

.

a democratic, participative group model: All decisions are reached by groupI- I , %

o 97


96

consensus, and all groups have "linking pins" (i.e., persons who hold

overlapping membership in groups). It is assumed that since'decisions.are.

,rmade by, group'conseasus, all decisions.will be Tully accepted both overtly

and covertly. Communication lines in System 4 are open and move freely.

among and between all levels of the organization, with little or no distor-t

t n or filtering of that information. Because fear.or coercion are, not

... .

use , attitudes are very positive. A climate of trust and openness is the

rule, not the exception.

In order to assess the extent to which a school system is participative

in managerial style, Likert (1978) developed the, Profile of a School (POS).

The ROS consists of 10 questionnaires that are designed to record behavioral

information within the organization as seen from the various levels of the.

, 1 ..- . _. , ..

.

organizatiOn (e.g., students, teachers,*principal, superintendent, and parent)..

While the POS attempts to dharacterize"iadividual's overall attitude and

motivation, its primary concern is to record current behavior and organize-.

tional practices.it the various levels of thesorganizatiqh. The variables

it attempts to Measure are those-that have been found to be related to quality

of performance in both school administration and businesS settings: leader-./

4 i

ship, decision making,problem solving, motivation, communication, conflict

naaagement, in:etion, and the structure through which interaction occurs

(Likart, 1978)., With the POS,-schools or school districts can be diagnosed

as either System 1 (authoritarian, non- participate), System 2 (benevolent

authoritarian), System 3 ( consultative) or System 4 (fully participativt).I14.

held research comparing System 4 schools with their' counterpart

(System, I)' been summarized in Table 3, s.

ea,.

988

1

J

k

low

OIL

f

Schoo(iffectiveness

Insert.Table 3 about her

97

A few of-these studies have.corre ated objective data such as achievement,1 I

test scores with system classifi tion and have found both higher achievement

I'test scores for System 4 (Donlan, 1971;,Gibson, 1974) and no relationship

between managerial Style and, educational performance (Horsman, 1973). There ,

is, however, a considerable body of field research that does support the....

validity,of the LikPrt-ISR model, aS"shown Table 3. One limitation of.e

most of these studies is that the outcome measures have been "soft?! ones,

such as Sob satisfaction., need satisfiction, labor relations, morale, etc.,

The limitationi of such "soflt criteria have been discussed previously.

The'Likert-ISRmodel also fails like the other OD models in that it

assumes that participative manag 1 conditions exist, -the school systein

will be effective. Stated difielv41y, the Likert-ISR model proposes, in

essence; that all a schOol syttem need do to hive an effective organization

is tohave a System04 organigationi-firthey definikit.' While'this reasoningx.

is questionable in and f itself; likert and his associates support this

;logic with research t#4t often uses only. one or two of the 10 POS scales

developed. -Thus, the research'plirporting to support the Likert-ISR model

oitezt only gathers' information at one or two levels of analysis (e.g., the:-, I

teacher and ihe principal). afid yet faapp.cations are made in terms 'of the

-entire_scho system. Despite these liMitations in the research, the

-Likert-ISR ". del'itself-doed bae much, to offer in terms of assessing the

perceived

r:

fectiveness Of,a school'system. The P0$ can be used as a° -


98

_

diagnostic todl to assess the internal state of the organization, and the1

,Likert model can suggest ways in which to.ilprove that internal organize-

tional state. However, since organizational climate is not the'only

deterMinent of organizational; effectiveness, 'the Likert model is not

Sufficient in and of itself to assess organizational effectiveness.

Conclusion - The Choice of a Model for SchOol Systems

IIt is our contention that what the literature on organizational4

effec-

tivenessneeds leatt.is another model of effdctiveness. Rather, we-believe

thre are components of several of the models discussed abov e that are

appropriate for school systems. The advantages and disadvantages of each

the models has been delineated above.I,

I.The two models most supported by empirical research are the.man agement-

%-. l'-

.b - objectifies' and the Likert-ISR. models.. Both models hie' problems when -

. 4applied to school hems. So believe thi poditive,features of..these moaels4 '7N\ .

.

..

1 .plus those of de other effectiveness models are best conceptualized-in a

.., .

Q.*

process model of. effectiveness.

taipbell et al. (1974) and Steers (1977)1, in -the general context ofa 4 -°

organizational effectiveness, and Madaus et arl_(1986), in the context oft,

eve recommen e models of-iftectiveness.with emphasis-°.

on processes-rel ted to In ail three cases, the process modeld 'I, =' s

.'incorporate various features of goal-centered and systemb-oriented models . -

1 \ . ,

.', .

N.,

of effectiveness. Steers (1977), for example,' delineates three major dimen-7sions for his process model. These diiensions are: -1) goal Oilt zatl'ai-

3l ,

2) a systems perspeCtivei and 3)'a behavioral emphasis. In referen e to.

. . .

many of the goal7oriented approaches to effectiveness, he states ,sdessments''

.N

, of as organization's successes failures.A'the intentions fOr the organization rather.

A

researchers. However,-Madauset-al. (1980) point out that such intentions

' (Le schOol Objectives) are indefatigably linked to the value 'judgments


99

must be made with reference to

/than the value.judgments of the

of `those responbible for the,sChool. Thus, only if some consensual agtee-.

ment can be reached with regard to the "intentions".for schools can bsoluterr, ..

.

. . .or relative comparisons be made with regard to school effectiveness. il.e,

Madaus et al. (1980), Bloom (1976) ikid many otherspagree that.the-processof.

. , .

reaching suchconsensualagreement will\indeed be-difficule,-themajority..-. .

- ,

also feel" the task is tot insurmouttable: .Campbell et, al:-:(1974).

an. excellent procedure .fgr the degelopment of task objectivei based on, the! ..

.. Y 4.,perspectives of all relevant constituencies. The adoption of this procedure,.

. ..

a variant of the Scaled expectancies methodology from SOith and,Rendall 1 -. .

(190), would irovide/for ain.operational definitiori of "consensual' agree- ''.

'

..i

tin't",of intentions and A documentatibn of the differences in intentions as

. .

-7\

.I

4 function; of the collpStituency. Likert's (1978) ;'Piofile of's School". .

questionnaire has items to,

members, principals, teachers, and

iitentions from theprspectiVes of board

Students.

s----7Sred-tucrcifirsostrongly endorses the open systems theory of organi-*V

X.zational effectiveness wbich-emphasizes'the interaction of the 'organization,. %..,,

with the ari4annietre. ghe major focus of=this perspective is on the rela-,.

,. ,,tioaships between'aomponents both inside and outside the organizations 4s.

.

they affect tlie'organiiation. The discussion by Metfessel.and-Michael

(1967).

thethe context of colleges and universities is a good example of An oQ.

system., goal- optimization model which alsovhas applications for elemeittazy

S.

t

11,

School-Effectiveness

100

and secohdary school system's. Program evaluation, they state, should in--

valve members of the total school community such as lay individuals and

.e groups, profesiional personnel, and students. Likewise, in incorporating

. an On-systeins perspective for school effectiveneis, a ationshipa between

constituencies representing the total school communities should also be

recognized and, according to Steers (1977), should make -it easiar for mana-

gers to "... take decisive actions to, facilitate gdal attainment because of,

theii increased understanding of organizational dynamics" (1977, v. 1.77),4

Thus,' Steer's thinking reflects one ofthe'major components of the managerial.

,'process model.

The third dimension. 0; Steer's (1977) process model emphasiZas tfie role`

of-behavior in affecting organitational performance. Steer's states that

if are to gain a better. understanding of 04 factors that explain effec-.

.-tiveneda, it is critical' to' first-gain'an understanding of the basic unit .

,:

of analysis; that is,,,the'behaviorI

.'--. .

of the orginization's,members.l

11t ,is10"_ 1 ., , .

this third,dimensian that-is most often- misting in the goal-oriented or

systems- resource models. As'stated in the revieWs.of'the.specific models0 ,

withid ihd go

consideration

al-otielted and systems-petrctives, there is generally littleb

giveh.to-the "means" (i.e., the behaviors)'employed for: or-

.ganizational "end-states". While'this criticism is,more'appropriate for

the Aoal-oriented models (i.e., rational-goal, HBO, funopional, and cost-. 0

. -

4 -',Itlefit), the.dystem;'Models are also ggzidrilly-outcOMe-oricnted, partic-

. '. . ularly.the aysteta-rresource and-functionalstrudtures models.

>dels.- In fact, only .

1.

4.

.

.

.

the mgnagerial p6oess model considers the "means" (i.e., managerial1.

4.ha4ior) as an impOrtaitelementaf the model.- #nfortunhely,-asdivuased

SPt V,A e

. .102-..

1'

SChool Effectiveness

101

above, there are few empirical studies of managerial behavior in schoole-

systems'.

The greatest gap in the research on school effectivenessiis in thisA

general arew.of human resource behavior and performance. There are,, of

caurse,,a great many studies which locus on teacher behavior and its rela-

tion to certain studtat variables. However, none of these studies consider

these relationships in the context'of school effectiveness. There is a needA

to assess such input and output variables thin the framework of a ,process-, 4

oriented; behaviorally based model of effectiveness. Relationships between

task' objectives at the macro level,'orsanizational'member behavior at the

micro level, aild-outcome measurewsuch as efficiency (systems research),

climate (functional-structures), morale (Likert -ISE) and student outcomes

(MBO) Should be investigated.

There has been very little research which has attempted to employ a'

muitivariate strategy. in order to study how the various school outcome meas-.

ures'interact. Also, with the exception of 'the studies on compensatory

ischool progranie, the use of static ressearcirdesigns has precluded investiga-

tions of the dynamicnatuie of the various criteria employed in studiesof

school effectiveness and their relationships to various school inputs. The.

use of archival data.in 'order to e.hipotheses about these relationship's

would certainly be an excellent first, step in tfts regard,

Human Resource rocess. Variables in.thel4ess Model. There wad -,

generally 'a lack of'research in the area of. the human resources available

tieriahool systend.(i.e., teadhers, Aincipals,-administratars)sand Hmnan,

resource polidy. Studies that have investigated human resource variables

, 4

103

,

1School Effectiveness

102

have concentrated on those thatare most easily retrievable such as years

of education or experience.,

(

salary, and demographic background character-

istics. A'process model of school effectiveness should incorporate factors

pertaininglto personnel selection, training, and evaluation procedures,

particularly for teachers and principals.* Based on a considerable amount

of research in these areas outside of education, we can hypothesis that

some "process" variables in school adOillisk.ation are related, to uncontam-

inated measures of school effectiveness.' For example, the extent to which

a content-domain sampled, strudtured interview is used with trained, mul-',

.

i .tple assessors should be related to more valid selection decisions at both

.,.

.. / .

.

. ..

.

the teacher and principal levels (Dunnette & Borman, 1979)) The type ofc.

formal performance feedback systek established for teachers should be related

to improVementof teacher performance over time. The level of teacher job

satisfaction should, be related to both absenteellm add,1 to a lesser ettent,

_turnover._ The level professionalism exemplified schools by ongoing

training programs and teacher- principal interactions should be related to

improved teacher performance.

111 - We believe the stepfollaiiing the task obiLtives-procedure described'rs

4

by Campbell et al. 41974rin.rberefiftement of a proceSs model of school

. ,

effectiteness should be the development of a.iluestionnAire that assesses

'variables related to schoOl personnel selection, training, add evaluation.

. ..

..

policy. Such,a questionnaire should also include organizational cliMate,. . ...

variables shown* Likert (1978) ax others-to be related to several out-... ., .

... ,

dome measures. As will be discussed below; we believe the personnel pro- .-.

cess 'variables' will shot.; relatiiely little variance across school systemi

4

-104


103.,

I

at the present ,time.

Madaus et al. (1980) discuss several other factors found to be related

to higher student outcomes in several studies. While there was considerable

overlap with some of the ciliate variables discussed by Likert (1978), two

Important predictivepredictive variables were student perceptions of academic futility

,(

and teacher "push" 6%.g., BrookOVer, Schweitzer, Schneider, Beady, Fiood &

Wise baker, 1978). Brookover et al. (1978) reported'that the social-psycho-lk

logical and normative variables, based on these measures of climaie,contri-.7 ''' ^- ' .

,touted close to 80% of the variance in mean school achievementwhen such. .

V.variables are enteiedfirst in a regression analysis. Madaus et al. (1980)'

also cite several other studies.from their own work outside of the United.

States-to-support the importance of, such climate variables. Items. related

to these variables would thus be appropriate for the "process" question-,

nairg.

-

This "process" questionnaire should be.loased on the results of the

task obje!ctiVes procedure and incorporate the salient features of the

nal-oriented and systems-resource, Models discussed' above.` Efforts

. should be made to theoretically link these process variables to nut-

A ,

come measures frequentlyused in the educational literature. Before an.,.

empirical study relating the "process responses to outcome measures is

undertaken, however,' major considerations must be given to the importantI

issues of research design -'and data aggregation. The next section will

ritique 'research designs that have been Taployeeto investigate vari-

ables related;to school effectiveness.

105

°

(

)


104

Research Designs in Studies of Scitool Effectiveness- . t

While there is near unanimous agreement that, among schdol related

variabless teaching quality is the best predictor-of student outcomes, no,

studies could be found with an appiopriate deAign for investigating -the

effects of--teachers over a period of time longer than one year. .Several

studies, discussed above, have found moderate relationships between teacher

charaCteristics and measures' of student achievement Rosenshine '&

Furst, 1971). HoWever, attempts to study the effects of schooliniat a

4

higher level of aggregation (e.g.; schOoL;district, or state level) have

made no proyisions for the fact that individual teacher effects will be .

diluted in any such analysis. Consider, for example, the following, research

scenario: dades 3, 6, and.9'ake.testedfor achievement and theirf

scores are aggregated over teachers and schools to the system level. The

scoresare then porielated with a great number of potential predictors of

student achievement. The resulto reveal trivialeffects for variables re-

lated to the school., including those of the classroom teacher. Based on this

type Of research, the conclusion is drawn that "school brings little-to bear. - . .

. .-L , .------.

uponachild's achievement that is independent of his background and general"

social context" ?Coleman et al., 1966, p.-325) or,"schooling does relatively

little of that it always claimed to do - foster the cognitive abilities of

students and thus assure them a productive niche in the economy" (Levine t

'Bane, -1975, p. 19). While Madaus

of reviewing the problems in this

from research with it, the impact of the data aggregatio hod on teacher

effects-should be emphasized. Roberts, Hulin,tand Rousseau (1978) state

et al. (1980) have done an exceklent jcfb

type of, design' and 'he i etences drawn

n

106

4


105

I ., g-

that if one is going to aggregate data prior to.data...

analysis,a

the interpre- /& .

....

'"V*.tation of the meaning of.the data shoul4be clear prior to.

aggregation.

Given the dire conclusions drawn from aggregated data analysis such as in

Coleman et-al.Z(1966) and Jencks etal..(1974, it is clear there was littleO

consideration of intermtation vis a! vis aggregation..6 46 0I.

ideal"study *investigate teacher effects would be somethinglike

f the following: 1) using a valid.performance assessment method', teachers are

rank ordered or rated on seAtil important dimensions of effectiveness within

grade levels; 2) criteria are seleCted that have construct validity for school.

effectiveness and Conceptual similarity with the dimensions of teacher effec-,

tiveness student achievement and teacher "achievement-ofientation"

or student motivation and teacher "support facilitation"); 3) a large group

of students (n > 600) is randomly assigned or matched"(based on background

characteristics) to teachers who have been identified as "highly effective "'.

on the dimensions'Of effectiveness or to teachers identified as "less thad

highly effective" (the ideal design' would ident1fy teachers of both high

and low effectiveness on the dimensions). Assuming we can identify teacher.

grodps 9f both high'andlow effectiveness'on two dimensions, our longit4-.&

desimsould be samething like a 2 x 2 x 6 (grade levels) where we. 0..

would study individual studentsover a six,year period; 4) students are

assessed on the criteria over gpade levels with greater effects predicted

over time as a function of teacher effectiveness:.

,: ....

.,. .. .

Blfore we are locked up and put away, let us emphasize that this "ideal"

design hfs been presented for illuatrftive purposes only We only offer ite'*

as a basis fOcomparison to the designs that,have been used in the past in

107

%.

`-

order to 'tease out"

ated variables that

steps in the "ideal!!

J4

SchoolEffectiveness

10

the effects of teacher performance or -other school-re-

do not affect all students equally. Based on the four--

design,. let us make .some.generaf comments about the4

,quality of the school effects research we have_rdiriewed:

v\ h Ferformapce assessieht%procedures for teacher effects are-crude.,

For the most part, criteria used to perationalize tticher'perfOrmance has

been privative with little cansideratiOn of research in;PlicatiOhs'4n'the4

tarea of performance assessment. The majority of studies reviewed-used trait-

4.,based, supervisory ratings of teacher perforMapce, a method replete-with,

potential for error (Bloom, 1976). The Mhdh fewer number of studiA that

.investigated principal or administrator performance are aisolenerally guilty.. .

of faulty methodology in this.sfme respect.

Other. studies have employed measurement strategies with even lesspoten-.

qal, for ,validity. (1966), fat example, used teacher verbal

ability ,ae a predictor of student, aptitude. therewas some dvidence42

that teachers" verbal ability was related to achievement, the varianceVS^ ,

accounted for by this predictor was' low. _This does not strike us; surprising..

.

.

An analogy in the measurement ofmanagerial.Rerformaace would b:e to use height

'

as the measure of success. Several studies have docuthented doirelation

between height and Managerial 'performance so why not- just use eight as the

measure pf successrather than, bothering with the cumbersome task of measuring. .

.performance. The simple answer is that height is not a measure of performance

.. .

(

and neither is the verbal apiiitrbf.teachers. Both Variables are 'only cor- 1.

.

relates of the constructs under'stuay and since their respectite'dorrelations-

with performance in no way approach those of adaptable reliability coefficientst

4

'108I

4

CI

t


they should not serve as repladements for the variables' we wish to study.

Of course, givei the sample size (645,000 students and 60,000 teachers)

. ..

and time constraints for; Colemap'et.al. (1966) study, it is understand-

able,.

able, why a verbal ability measure used as a surrogate measure of teaching. .s,

4 ,

quality. However, it is equally understandable why such teacher effects

contributed so little to the predictive equation. The major point of this

argument is that if your interest is teacher effects, efforts should be made'

to maximize the predictive potential of these-effects with sound measurement

strategies ,(cf., Rosenshine & FurSt, 1971).

2. The most common Criterion for the assessment of school effectiveness

has been scoresca standardized tests (Averch at al.,,1972; Madaus et al.,

1980). Cooley. and Lohnes (1976) have taken the,position that general verbal

and_nonverbal ability tests -are the preferable measures of school effective-

.ness for both-primary and secondary'leVels because the "intellectual factor"

measured.on such tests is' the most common across schools and grade levels.

Coleman et al. (1966) also argued'for .the- preference of verbal and non-verbal

ability tests. .

.

The issue of the appiopriateness of variouS.outcome measures for studies

in school effectivenesi is best conceptual4zed as an issue of measurement

validity.' Validity in the context of school effectiveness is the extent to#0.

which outcome measures corretpond to actual effectiveness levels for school

systems. Just-as then we are interpreting 'a test we(wish to make an inference

about the :degree to %Joh aperson possesses a certain 'trait or quality .

measured by the test s also in interpreting effectiveness dat , we wish to.

infer that a`school system's actual level of effectivenes on a dimension is/

-109


108

reflected by the effectiveness data.

The traditional typed of validity are mentioned in virtually every text.

in educational testing and differential psychology and are disCussed in

detail in the Uniform Guidelines on Employee Selection Procedures, the

Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests (American Pszchologecal

,Association, 1974), and the Principles for the Validation and Use of Per-

t

sonnel Selection Procedures, Second Edition (APA, Division 14, 1980). In

terms of school "effectiveness", "construct validity" is the most appropriate

for the definition of validity given above (James, 19,73). There can be no

question, how6rer, that features of content and criterion-related validity

are also applicable. In fact, we are of the position that the distinctions

that, have been drawn between the difttrent types ctAE validities result in an

oversiarplification'of-thdinof "one-shot" validation processes unnette &

Standards state that "a thorough understanding

investigations" (API Standards, 1974; p. 25).

a g to numerous reports

Borman, 1979). The APA,

of validity may require many

This statement probably best

sums up our position on the validity of school effectiveness data. The

term "construct validity" probably best captures this position (Campbell,

1176) .

Construct validity has been defined as the degree to which variability

in a measure iati function of variability in some underlying construct.

Thus, in the school effectiveness context, variability in the measures of

schgoleeffectiveness should be a function of the variability of the actual

effectiveness levels Ofthote schooli. The sameadefinition of construct

validity can be applied to teacher effectiveness by simply replacing the

110

4

"a.

9

4

C)


109

. word "school" with the word'ffteache?.. What should be underscored in'the

1definition of validity is the notion of inference.. Validity;does not refer

to a specific measurement strategy. For example,, it should never'besaid

that MBO is-a valid to que formeasuring schdol effectiveness, implying

that validity' is a constant across users, uses, and situations. Rather, -the

inferences.padefrom the use of MBO data can be said to be valid or invalid.

based-on the evidence presented. Cronbach (1971) put It best when hesaid

one

specified

.$`

is valid,",

validates not

procedure ...

one can nevef

a test, but an interpretation of dataarising'from a

Because every interpretation has its otmdegree of

reach the simple conclusion that a Darticular test

The evidence presented to support' inferences of validity can and should

be from ma different sources and basedon methodologies that have been,

recommended for content, criterion-related, and construct validity. It is

thus important to conduct criterion- related validity studies where possible,

and to use content- oriented domain sampling in order to be able to justify a

conclusion that.effectiveness data are valid.

o

Research on school effectiveness has in general ignored the issue of

content-domain samplingand concentrated instead on 'criterion-related validity

. studies using ability tests scores as the criterion. Wails et al. (1980). .

' ..

,;:

make conviacingargumenis that the generally poor criterion-related validities.

4, a.,

',.. ..

4,;,, are at least partially a function of the. ack of construct validit9 for the* ;%:'

..-:-.abiIity tests. They state that "... schools have a whole host of objectives#,

%'

.

in the cognitive area which are not_ represented in a test of general ability

It seeMs ouriousto look for differences between schools on something

School Effectiveness-

110

that is only incidentally taught while ignoring the possible differential.

success on material the.; is more specific to sc \ool curricula" (1980, p. 124).

3. Step: three in the "ideal" study' presented 'above ,had to :do with

experimental design-and sample size. The "ideal" design was presented `hat'.

would be most sensitive to teacher effects. Ouf review of the literatue on

.school effectiveness reVealed no studies employing designs that approxi-

mated the "ideal" and, with a few notable exceptions, sample-sizes that

render =d most:reseafch dedies virtually "powerless" to refute the null

J hypothesis. On the issue.of sample sizes a,olasaic article by Schmidt,

Hunter, and UrrY...(1976) dOcumented the statidtical power of test validation

research given certain sample sizes. They were able to show that givt. the

common problems of range restriction in the criterion and criterion unrelia-

bility, most researchers grossly underestimated the number of subjects%

needed to detect; -true differences. Such a problem may also have accounted

for many of the dismal results for school effects reported in the literature.

With regard to the issue of rsearcb! design, numerous examples of quasi-

experiments (Campbell & Stanley, 1966) were found In assessments of compen-

satory programs such as.Head Start (e.g., Cicirelli, 1970). However, no,

examples of quasi-experiments that approximate the "ideal" design above-It

c

could be ford for hon-coMpensatory schooling. For example, it would be/

possible tocompile criteria data on teachers and, based on ranking or ratings. .

of performance, group students based on the number of "highly effective"\ 6

1

versus "less than highly effective" teachers they were assigned through a

desIgnatedgrade level. This quasi-design would resemble.the_atraight "ideal".

experiment with the exception thit subjects would be "randomly" 'assigned to

112

.4

"A

School ,Effectiviness

4's 111

a number'of-highly effective and less effective, teachers over thesix year

period.- sPredictions could then be_made based on the number of "highlyA

effective" Versus "less than highly effective" teachers (between dimensions)- ,

.

..

.,.

,...-..

.

and the effects oe.different distributions of teaching quality o the sixdistributions

year period. -'For exatple, the effects of where in the six year peiiod the

students received the "highly effective teaching" could be investigated.

While this-quasi-experimental design would not be as sensitive as the

"ideal" design presented above, assuming there is reliable variance in the

pred4ct9ri.e., a good range in the number of highly effective teachers)

across students, such c design should facilitate a reasonably sensitive,tdst:

.of the relationship between teacher characteristics and school outcomes,

providing consistent longitudinal olltcome dataare.available on the,students

(e.g.; Project Talent data;--Planagan& Cooley, 1966). Madaus et al: (1980)

'4 discuss some ofthe drawbacks to longitudinal-quasi-experimentation, most

having to do with the inability to assign students to groups (see also

Marco,'Nurphy, & Quirk, 1976). The fact that the researcher cannot select.-

the criterion measures could'also'seriously affect the study's sensitivity

to true'differences.'

Returning to the "ideaI"'design for a moment, perhaps a socially accept-.,

able design that-would be more sensitive than the quaSi-design presented

- above is one in which Students are randomly selected to all."bighly.effec-.

dine' teachers with comparisons made between this group and-those students. .

who had exposure to less than all."high:ly effective" teachers.. This type

of.quasi-experiment approximates the normal class assignment situation and

thus would not-disrupt the educational process. Also, and given the points;113

Scool-Effectiveness

112

.. -

...

raised above about the criteria, a critical consideration-is the'fact.

that -,

such a design would again allow the experimenter fo select the most'constructI

.

..

.

- valid-''BUtcome measures for study in the longitudinal design..

..... , ,

The typical study of school effectiveness divides the:criterion variance,

.

Into within and between school variance. Main effectsin'thii type of -

.

analysis for charicteristics of teachers or principals'are evident when..

.t. ,

,..

there are greater differences across schools or school districts than within

" c

such aggregations. With regard to teacher effects there is an implicit

assumption that there are factors at the school, district, or state level:

that somehow distinguish teaching quality,. 'For.example,might some school

districts, have more valid selection systems or lower selection ratios (i.e.,,tt1

,

,,

...

a lower ratio of ,applicants to openings)?' Might some school districts spend -,.

,actelatively greater amount of money, training teachers to be more effective?

Alsat, might teachers of potentially higher quality select certain school'4

diatrilvs over others? Similar questions can be asked of principal or ad-.

'ministra\tor characteristics'. Based on our review of the literature, personnel

evs

Selection':and training in educatidn is generally unifotm across schools,..\

districts d other levels of aggregation. In other words, theee is little

evidence that chools or districts differ in the extent to which they effec-

tively train .eir personnel. SeVeral studies have found that teachers of

potentially high

may select certain

however, has little

quality (based on acievement test scoret,,for example)

chools and districts over others. This\ latter finding,Ag=1,

do with scilool 'characteristics other than perhaps

their physical proximi (e.g., inner-city versus suburban); Thus, in terms

of 'personnel selection and training, there is little evidence to suggest

.1

41. JI


\113

that between-sdhool variance wille greater than within-school variance ,

otherlthan'that which' is related 'to background, characteristics Of teachers.

The higher level Of data aggregation (i.e.; to the school level) for teacher

,, and administrative characteristics thus-Uses a mean value to represent

such- characteristics when there 'is a great likelihood that the majority of4,

students gi:Om any one school or district do noireceive the "average" level

of these Characteristics. Midaus et,al. (1980) state that teacher charac-

-teristis hive been aggregated to the school -level in "virtually every studyt .

.

e of differential school effeCtiveness..." (1981p. .90). The poor predicta-

bility in these studies for teacher and other.school-related effects (e.g.,

resources and fhcilities) is certainly explainable given the level of data

aggregation consistently, used in such studies.

We believe the conclusions of Coleman.qt-al. (1966), Jencks eval.a

*

(1972); Levine and Bare (1975):aad other's regarding the effects of schooling

are unwarranted given the designs and methods employed to study effects.

In our review of the literature, we failed to-find an experimental or quasi-

experimental design thatwas adequately sensitive to be able tb partial but

the effects of intuitively appealing, school re1,:ated viriables.

Applications of models of organizational effectiveness,should'only be

-=:-.4d1Z,.empirically tested once the issues of data aggregation, the construct

dit7 of criteria for school outcomes, and adequate sample sizes are consid-%.4.

eredthoroughly. Before lthese criticalissues are addressed, however, of

'.paramount.concern foiesearChers on.School effectiveness are the objectives6.

or purposOs for schooling. Until there is understanding on this most com-

plicated of, issues, researcher's are in a position sudcintly captured by the

y

1150

School EffedtivenessA

114

3

If:Mowing postage:

"Mdre than any other time in our history, mankind faces a

0

*,crossroads. One path leads to despair and' utti hopelessness.

The othetlt? total extinction.. Let us pray that we have the

witidom to ChOote correctly (Allen,-1980, p. 17).

A.

r

8 ec.

1. J.

o

a

7

School Effectivenessti

1115

. . References

Abt,'`JC. ,Applying cost-benefit paradigms to social program evaluations.49

it°Pape presented at the-meeting of the Evaluation Research Society,

Washington; D.C.',"1.977.

Airasian, P. W. 'A perspectiVe on the uses and misues of standardized

alievement tests. Measurement in Education,. Fall 1979.'19.; 3.., .

W., Kellaghan, T.,& Mhdaus, 'G. F. Concepts'ofSchool Effec-1

, .

(Contract No. NE-640-3-0214) Natiag41-1-rrstituttof Education,

.

Airasian, P.

tiveness.

.Testing, Assessment and Evalpatipn DiVision, 19,79.

Airasian,.P. & Madams, G. A apt0q of the Sensitivity of Sclodl and Program .

Effectiveness Measures. Report submitted to the Carnegie Corporation,

f"New:York. Chestnut Sass: Bostbi School of, Education,

1976. 5'

Albanese, R.' Management: Toward Accountability for Performance. Richard

D. Irwin, HOmewood, Il., 1975;

Aibtecht, K. 'Successful Management by Objectives An'Action Manual. Engle-

wood Cliffs: Pientice Hall, 1978.

-

Alexander, E.& Griffin,-L. School district effects on academic achievement:

A reconsideration. American ociologichl.BeVieci, 19,75, 40, 144-152.

tAlkin; M. Accountability defined. In J. Roueche and B. Herrscher (Ed.)

TowarO'Indtructional Accountability.'Palo Alto: Westinghouse Learning,

1973.

Alien, Side Effects. New York: Random ik;iuse, 1980.

Altergott\ B. Management-by-Objectives

doctoral dissertition;VniVersity'of

for the: Public Schools: Unpublished.4

Indiana,' 1970.

s.

L.

. . .

.

C

4imerican Psychological Association, Aida,

and 'PsyOhOlOgical tesis. )Washington::

0

e I.

School Effectiyeness

A 116 ,

0

00

JIME.: :Standards for edbcatiOeal

s

.

American Psychological Assoeiatian,. _

1974.,1,

6

,

....' .1 .t

#.

. ,. '''.-.,

;e 'American Psycholdiicaf Association,:',Division,of'Industrial-Organizationai

_ ...; .,-

0 # I,

Psychology. Principles or thevaiidation and-use'of"personnel'selectionL .

. .,.. . ,

Procedures (Second,Edition). Berkeley, CA.:,Atittior, 1980,

Andericin, B. & Tisier, ,fit. Socia.VC1aSs'School,BUreSaiczatizatiott and Educa-

,

k, , ''! -....z.- ,, .... 0

tianal Aspirations: Educationar.Administ* ritiOn Quarterly, 19730, .

, .c. ... ....

34e"49.:,..

.

,,,, , .-

00 .

,

Anderson, 64& N4ssoft, S. 'Stu4ies in,the reltability and Validity of the

critical incident technique._ Journal of Aoplied'Psychology, 1964, 48,

vs

.Anderson, IH. AL-Study of Certain,.Criteriaof'TeachingEffectiveness°.°- :

' of Experimental Education, 1954,'23, 41-11.-

Journal

Andes, J. Aiterhative Models for Urban District Organization. Educational

Adanistration Quarterly, 1971, J.;;' 6416: "'i

Aglin,-J. C. & Schoderbek; P. P. How to measure'MBO Public ,personnel

Management, 19g; 5,.88-95.

Austin, O.:Exemplary school's and the seardh fOr'effectiveness. 'Educational1

Leadership; 1979, 37, 14 -14.'

, ,iverch H Carroll, S., Donaldson, T., Riesling, H., and Pincus , -J. How

Effective is Schooling? Critical Review and Synthesis :of Research4 .2

SantaMonica, California: Rand Corporation, 1972

as

0

/

*


:1117.

'.t

Barr, A., Torgepon, T.; Johnson, C.; Lyon, V., & Walvoord; A. The Validity.

.#1

ofItertain Instruments Employed An the Measurement of Teaching Ability.al

The Measurement of Teaching Efficiency, H. Walker, ed., New York, Mac-

Milian. Co., 1935, 73-141.

Barrof S. An approach to developing accountability m easures for' the public

schodl.S. Phi Delta Kamm, 1970,.52, 196-205.

Basset, T. R. Its side-effects of education that count. Phinelta Kappa,

1972, 54, 16 -17.

11Beck, A..'& Hillthan, E. Making 160/R Work. Addison-Wesley Publi7hing

Company, 1976...,4 .

Beckhaid, R:," Organizational Development. ,Reading, MA: Addison Wesley;,'

1969..

r .

.,Bennis,-1.% G. Organization development: Its nature,' origins, and prOs-

pcts. Reading, gags: Addibon-Weiley, 1969.

Rennis, W.'Toward a TrUlyScientific Management: The Concept of ,OrganIza-

Changing,Organization's. New York:' McdnaW Hill,tional Health,

-L- 1966, 32-63.

t

'B ernardin,.H. .& Smith, P. C. A clarifidation, of some issues regarding

the d9eloilent'and use of behayiorally*chored rating scales. Journal,

of Applied Psychology, 1981,.

Bernhardt, R. G. A study of the relationships between teachers attitudes

toward militancy and.their perceptions of selected organizational Charac-

,

-r41,

teristics-oftheir sthools. (Doctoral, dissertation, SyracUse University)

Ann ArbAr: University Microfilms, 1972, No 72-11, 825.

119 .


118p

Beshers, J. Models of the edUcati6snal process: A sociologist's perspective.

In F. Mosteiler and D. Mbynihan Orqquality of Educational Opportunity.

New York: iota= House, L972.

Bidwell, C. The school as a formal organization. In. .1% March, Handbook of

Organizations. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1965.

Bidwell, C. & Kasarda,, J. .Reply to Hannan, Freeman apd.Mayer, and Alexander

American Soeiologital Review, 1975, 40,,152-160:,

Bishop,t. & George, J. Organizational Structure: A Factor Analysis'of

Structural Characteristics of Public Elementary and Secondary Schools,

Educational Administration Quarterly, 1975, 3, 66-80.._

IIIIIP'.Blaschke, t, Performance Contracting: Who Profits Most? Bloomton,

.

... Indiana: The Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation, 1972.

2

Blau, P. & Scott, 'W. Formal Organization, New York: Chandler, 1962.

.Bloai, B. S. Human characteristics and school! learning. New York: McGraw-.

/Hill, 1976.

Bowen, H. R- & Douglass, G. K. Efficiency'in.liftral educatioh.-4study

of comparative instructional aistsfoT>different ways of'organizing -...

. .-

teaching- learning in'.'a.liberal arts college. -New 'f'ork: .McGraw -rill, 1971.-.

BrOokover, W. B., Schweitzer, J. H.; Schneider, J. M., Beady,- C. H., Flood,

P. K., & Wisenbaker, J. IL Elementary` school social climate and school

achievement. American'Educational'Researd Journal,-1978, 15, 301 -318,. ,

'. .

Brophy, J. Stability of TeaCher Effectiveness. American Educational Research$

Ja, i973, 10(3), 245 -252. r

Bucali,- J. Personnel-director . - . what you should Itnow before recommending

1180-.-Ilisonnel Journal, 1977, 56(4), 176 -178.'

120

40^

Burns, /: Management in action. Operational Res;rdh Quarterly, 1957, 8,


119

`N.45-60.

*

,Byrnis, J. L. 'A study of'dertain.relatibuships song perceived 'supervisoryTo

Style,iparticipativeness, and teacher job.satisfaction. (Doctoral disser7

tation, Syracuse University) Ann Arbor: University Microfilm, 1973,

No. 73-7790.

Calsyn, R., Fornaizky, L. & Dittmar, S. IncomN.oe Adoption of an Innovation:

:The Case OfdoalAttainmentScaling. Evaluation Quarterly, 1977,4, 127-130.

\ .1 Cameron:R. Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher

.. ,

.

.

.

education. Administrative,Science Quarterly, 1978, 23, 604 -629.

,CaMpbell,'1. Contributions Research Can Make in Understanding:Organizational

----EffiOtiieness. 'In Organizational Effeditveness: heory,' Research,

Utilization. Spray, S. (Ed.). Rent State University Press, 1976.1

A.campbell, J., BoWnai, D., Peterson, N., & Dunnette, M. The Measurement of. .

. .

Organizational Effectiveness: A )eview of Relevant Research and Opinion

.(Contract No.1100024-73-C-0023). San Diego, Calif.: Navy Personnel

Research and Development enter, 1974.

-%cEmpbell, Dunnette, M.,,Lawler, E. & Weidk, E. Managerial Behavior,

f _

Performance, and Effectiveness. New Yoile:- McGraw Hill, 1970.

1

Carina, S. Executive Behavior: A Study df the.Woxk Load and the Working

*Methods of Managing Directors. Stockh4d: Stromberg, .

arpolter-Ruffman, P., Hall, G. & Sumner, G. Change in Education,. Cambridge,

Mass: Ballinger Publishing Company, 1974.

t, 4

121

4

o

Carr, A study of the job satisfaction of high schootOrinCipals.


120

.

.

(Do4oral 4issertation, the,Univeisity of Mithigan).Ann Arbor: University4 ,

Microfilms, 1971,No441-23, 719. 4Chase, C. Achievement Tests. In Measurement For Educational ivfluation,

Maori- Addison-Fesley Pnbj.ishing Co., 1974,4158-209:.

'Chase, jr:, S. (Ed.) Problems in Public Expenditure Analysis. Washington,,

D.C.: Brookings Institution, 1968,.

',.)

-S ....,

dicirelli, V. G. The relevance Of the regression artifact problem tot -the..,

, le4

\ Westinghouse-Ohio Evuation orHead(Start: Reply to Campbell and

ErlebaCher. In J. Hellmntfi (Ed.), Disadvantaged Chilpt, Vol 3, New York:

.> .

.

Brunner/tiyel, 1970... °

Cicirelli, V. G.., Evans; J. W. & Schiller, J. S. The impact of Head St4rt:

A reply to the report analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 1970,-40,........

4.. ,io5-129: .

. .1 , t."- --...!.--.*

Cicourel, A. (Chairman). Organisational Processes In Education: Field.:,. I

i, Research om tntefeations Within Educational Organizations. Report frome

. a Canferenco, La Jolla,.Calif., 1975. ,.. .

404i*

..

'. ..

Coleman, J. Methods and iv-nits in the tEA studiei of effects o$ school on

learning. Review of Educational Research, 1975, 45, 335-386..

-

Coleman, J. The evaluation of 2quality of Educational Opportunity. In

.

Hosteller and Moynihan's On Equality of Educational Opportunity. New

York: Randon House; 1972.c A

s .

Coleman, J.,,Campbell, E.,ribbsol, C., MtPartland, J Mood, A., Weinfeld,,

P.;., a York, R. finality of Educational Opvortuaity. -Washington,D.C::..

.

U:.S. Goliernment Printing Office, 1966..4,,,, .

.

i '

'122


121

Coleman, J. S. & Hermit, N. L. Information systems and performance measures

in schools 'Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications,

1972.

.Corniallq? T., Conlon, E., & Deutschv4t Organizational Effectiveness: A

U

Multiple Constituency ApPrOach. The Academy of Management Review, 1980,

5, 211-218. '

Cooley, W. & Lohnes, P. Evaluation Research in Education. New York: Wiley,

'r976. 4

Corwin, R. Militant Professionalism: A Study of Organizational ConflictI.

in High Schools. ,Newlork: Appleton-Century Crpftsp'1970.

Craft, J. & Umber's, J. Human Resource Accounting: Perspective and

Prospects. Industrial RelatiOns, 1976.

Crittenden, K., Norr,.J. Some remarks on "student ratings ": The validity

problem. American Educational. Research Journal, 1975;12(4), 429-433.

.,Cronbach,L. Research on .Classrooms and 'chools:. Formulation of Questions,

Apesign, and Analysis; Standard Evaluation Consortium, Stanford, Calif.,

-; 1976. 4

CronbaCh; L. J. .Test validation.' In R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational

measurement (2nd ed.).. Washington D .C.: American Council on Education,

1971. -

;13

dronbach, L.. Course improvement through evaluation. Teacher's College

Recar4, 1963; 64,1672=683:

Cullers, B. Hppuiilished study, 1970. In R. Likert, The profile of a school.

AU44rbor,- ch.: Rensis Likert Associates, 1978.

123-

Do

;


122

Cullers, B., Hughes, C. & McGreal, T. Adm{n-fstrativejbebavior and student

dissatisfaction: A possible relationabip. Peabody Journal of Education,

1973, 155-163.0

CYert,'R. M.. & March, J. G. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Rail, Inc., 1961.

Cunningham, J. Approaches to the evaluation of organizational effectiveness.

Academy of Management Review, 1977, 2, 463'474.

Cytrynbaum, S., Ginath, Y., ,Birdwell, J., & Brandt, L. Goal attainment

Y.scaling: A' critical review. Evaluation Quarterly, 1979, 3, 5-40.

Davis, S. & Gross-Davis, B0 Assessing teacher effectiveness through student

learning gains. California Journal of Educational Research, 1974, 25,

186-191.

Donlan, H. K. The leader-management system of the elementary school

principal and'its,relation to student achievement. (Doctoral disserta-

tian, New York University) Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1978, No.

19-18, 840.

Dornbusch, S.,& Scott, W. Evaluation and the Exercise of Anthority:

Theory of Control Applied. to Diverse Organizations. San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, 1975.

Ducker, P. The Practice of Management. New York: Harper-Row, 1954.

Dunnette, M. D. & Borman, W. C. Personnel sel-ction and classification

t-. systems. Annual Review of Psychology, 1979, 30, 417-525.

Dyer, H. Toward objective criteria of professional accountability in the

schools of New York City. Phi Delta Kappan, 1970, 52, 206-211.

124

e.

b

to

School Ifectiveneas

SS,

123

, .Eads, Jr., A. iseuci; bf the Attitudes of Teachers Toward a "Supervision

by Objectives" Teacher Evaluation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,

University of South Carolina, 1974.1-'

Ebel, R. Standardized Achievement Teats: Uses and Limitations. In Readings

in Psychological. and Educational Testing, L. Aiken, ed., Boston: Allyn

and Bacon, 1973, 17-22.

Educational Research Service, Inc. Teacher Performance Contracts, Arlington,

. Virginia: Educational Research Service, 1974.

Educational Testing'Seryiee, Proceedings of the Conference bn Educational

Accountability, Washington, a971.

"England, G., Personal value systeMs of Americ!anmanfgers. Academy of Manage-

meat Journal, 1967, 10,'53-68;"

Englaad,'G. Organizational Goals and Expected Behavior of American Managers.

Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Industrial Relations Center.

Unpublished report, 1966.

qUalEmploiment Opportunity Commission. Guidelines on employee selectionj.... .

.

. .

procedurts.,,Federal Register, 1970, 35: 12333-12336., .

.

, ! .ERIC, ERIC:abstracts on educational planning. .'Available through ERIC2.

Clearinghouse,, 1973./

.. ,

..

4 .. , . ,

Etzioni, A. A Comparative Analysis of Complex Organiza//tions. New York:

The Free Press,-1975:".

, 'Modern 6iiagizations; Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice=Rall,

.1964.

ltzioi4 A. WO approaches to organizational analysis r A...critique and a, 4

suggestion. Administrative Science guarterly, 1969, 5, 257-.278.

125°

41.

o


124

Fanshel,S. & Bush, J. Ahealth-status index and its application to

health-services outcomes. Operations Research, 1970, 18, 1021-1066.

Farkas., G. Specification, residuals, and contextual effects. Sociological

Methods and Research, 1.474, 2,-333-363

r-f-eve- =ling Models and paradigms in, higher education. Journal

o

k

of EfghirEduCation, 1972,- 43,.754-767.

Finn, J. D. A general model for multivariate analysis. New Yorli: Holt,,

Rinehart, & Winston, 1974.,

Firebaugh, G. AA rule for inferring individual-level relationships from

aggregate data. American Sociological Review,, 1978, 43%557-572.. 0

<,-

Flamhtilti; -Eutan Resouice-ACcounting: A Review of 'Theory and Research.

Journal of Management Studies, 1'974.

Flanagan, J. The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin,

1954, 51, 327-358: .

T

Flanagan, J. C. & Colley, W. W. Project talent: One-year follow-up studies.

1Pittsburgh, PA: School-f Education, University ofittsburgh,

Foert,' R.; The voucher plan: Is worth the invihtment? ,The`tchool

Administrator, 1977.

Foster; J. P.: Perceptions of-Principals' Behavior as Rated by 'Teachers,

Students, and Principals;in thejunior High ,School in Chattanooga,

Tennessee,.:1976, No. TSZ-76-23,,216. \-----Freeman4'Ji H.- The unit of analysis in Organiiational research. In M.

W. Meyer (Ed.), Environments:and'organizationi. San.Franciico Joisey-

Baas, 1978..

126,

;-

- School Effectiveness

125

Freeman, M..and Roney, A. Unpublished study, 1980. In R. Likert, The

rofile of-a-s ool. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Rensis LikeA Associates.

Fremont, J. Using Parsons' functional ana4lysis in the study-of public

organizations. Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 20, 59-70.

French, W. .Organization development: Objectives, assumptions, and,stra-

tegies. In N. Margulies and A. Raia.(Eds.), Organizational Development:

Values, Processes, and Technology. New York: McGraw Hill, 1972.

Frey, P., Leonard: D. & Beatiy,'W. Student ratings of'instructions: vali-

dation research. American Educational Research Journal, 1975, 12, 435-v

444.

Garfinkel, I. & Gramlich, E. A Statistical Analysis of the 0E0 Experiment

in Educational Performance Contracting. .Journal of HumaiResources,.1973,

8, 275 -305.

Germs, W. A. benefit -cost analysis of the upward bound program.-

of Human Resources; 1971, 6, 206,220.

Georgoponlos, B. & Tannenbaum, A. A study of organizational effectiveness.

Journal

American Sociological Review, 1957, 22, 534-540.

Ghiselli, E.

.44,"

Gliorpade, J

Dimensional, problems of criteria. Journal of Psychology,. 1956,OP 4

4.

0

. Assessment of Organizational Effectiveness. Pacific Palisades,

Goodyea Publishing Company,

6 Gibson, A. K. The achievement of sixth gr ade students in al mid- western city.

(Doctoral dissertation, The University of Michigan) Ann Arbor:a.,

crofilms,'1974, No. 74-15, 729.

127

.06

University


126.

. * ,.

.'' Glaser, R. & Nitko

'A. J. Measurement in learning and instruction. In.:.,--

R. L. Thorndike (Ed.), Educational Measurement (2nd Ed.). Washington,

D.C.: American Council On:Education, 1971.

Glennan, T. 'Evaluating federal manpower programs: Notes and observations.

In P. Rossi and W. Williams (Eds.) Evaluating Social Programs, New

/ICYork: Semis, 1972.'.

Tek, W. g. E. Roberts, K. H. Hypothesized interdependence, assumed inde4, r.

pendence.- Papef presented at the Annual Meeting of the American\\P eh

logical Association, San Francisco, 1978.o ;

Gramlich, E..& Koshelf-P. Educational Performance Contracting,. Washington,

. D.C.: The Brookings Institution; 1971.

Gray, F. & Burns, M. Does "Management, -by- Objectives" Work in Education?

"Educational Leadership, 1979,'414-417.

Grayson, L.. Costs, beneffts, effectiveneds: Challenge to educational tech-.

bology. Science, 1972, 175, 1216-1222..

.Gross, N. & Herriott, R. Staff Leadership in Public Schools. New York:

Harper, 19651.

Guba,NE..&11idwell,-C. administrative relationships: Teacher effectiveness;

teacher, satilfaction and administrative behaviors: study of the school

as a social institution. Studies in Educational Administration, Chicagb:

University, of Chicago, 1957.

Gaon, R. The employee load of first line supervisors. Personnel Psychology,

k- :,1953, 7; 223-244.

H. Professional preparation and teacher effectiveness. The Journal

of Teacher` Education, 1964, 15, 72-76.9

128.

4


. 127 ).

Hannan, M. Aggregation and Disaggregition in Sociology. Lexington, Mass.:

Heath, 1971.if

'Hannan, M,.T., & Buritein, L. Estitation from grouped'observatiors. American

'Sociological Review41974, 39, 374-392.

Hannan: M., Preeman,:J. & Meyer, J. Specification of models for organize-.

tianal.effectiveness. American Sociological Review, 1976, 41, 136-143.

Hanson, E. The Modern Educational Bureaucracy and the Process of Change,. .

Educational Administration Quarterly, 1975, 3, 21-36.

. 'i-,

ushek, E. A Reader's Guide to Educational Production ?unctions. Avail-

le through NIE, 1977.

Harris. C. W. (Ed.) Problems In Measuring Change.' Madison: University of

Viso in Press, 1963.

Hartmark, . Accountability, 'Efficiency, and Effectiveness in the State

°

University of New York, SUNY-Albany:. Comparative Developmentkr N.

Center;,i97C\ .

Hatrx, H. Measuring theeffectivenessof nondefense public programs,

0,

Operations Research; 1970, 18, 7,72-784:

Haynes, P. D.t A comparison of perceived organizational characteristics

between selected work stoppage and non -work stoppage 'school districts

in'the state of Michigan. (Doctoral. dissertation, Western Michigan

University) Ann Arbor:. ilicrofilmsip 1972, No. 72-14, 182.'

& Washburne, C. BrooklyitCollegeReseardh in TeacherEffectivetess,,

The Journal of Educational Research, 1962, 55(8), 347-350.

J. Row and,why-.0Chaol 1#girict implemented MBO. NASSP Bulletin,

1978, 62, 82 -86. .

129

. School EffectiveneSs

128

Hersey, P. NASSP'sisessment center -from concept to practice. The Indds-

tal=Psychologist, 197.7-,_15(1), 22-23,

Hilfiker, L. The Relationship of School System Innovativeness to Selected

Dim :ion of lute ersonal Behavior in i htSchool S tems, Mhdison:

Rese and Development Center, 1969..

.. .

Horne, J. & Lupo:1, T. The work activities

of ,.;:ement Studies, 1965,'1, 14 -33.

of "middle" managers. Journal

Horsman J. Unpublished study, 1973. In R. Likert, The profile of a'school.

Ann Arbor, Mich.: Rensis Likert Assoc4.ates, 1978. t,

Hottleman, G. Peiformance contracting is a hoax. The Massachusetts Teachers,-

1971, 4-10.$ .

Hoy, W., Newland, V. & Blazovsky, R. - Subordinate Loyal r to Superior, Esprit,

and Aspects of Bureaucratic Strudture, Educational Administration Quarterly;

1977, 13; 71-85.

Hay, W., Tarter, C. & Pprsyth, P..

Administrative Behavior and Subordinate

Loyalty: An Empirical Assessment, Journal of Educational Administration,dr

1978, 16, 29-38..e

J, Hoyt to Manage b54 Objectives, New York: AMACOM, 1973.

Ingenkamp,t. Educational Assessment. Windsor, jerks: tiPERiublishing

.tompiny, 1977. ,4 . #

;.Jacksonf.J. 4i1Mathis, R.; Management -by- Objectives: Promises, Pitfalls,

'and'Possibilities*, Personnel Administration/Public Personnel Review,

1972, 72-7$.

James, Criterion models and construct validity for crite4a. jpar.

chological Bulletin, 1973, 80, 75-83. a

,

.r.

,

SchOol Effectiveness-

A .

129

CO

,

,Jencks, C.Omith, M., Acland, H., Bane, .14., Cohen,' D., Gintis, H., Sepias,

B., &...Michesson, S. Inequality: A_Ressessment of the Effects of Family .

and Schooling in America. New York: Basic Books, 1972:9

Jones, N. The relative effectiveness of HBO-trained counseldre. .Unpublithed

*manuscript, 1977. 44 I. ,

,

. ..

Katz D. & Kiha, R. TheSncial Psychology of Organizations. New York:. .00. .1. :.,..-.:1 .

Wiley, 197.8:`..P 0 0. ..

1V

Katz, D. & Kahn, R. The Social Psychology of Organizations.. New York:

John Wiley &. Sons, :Kay, B. R. Key factors in effective, foreman behavior.

36 25-31.

Kellaghan

ingNr

Personnel, 1959,

A. 6

Measuring schdol effectiveneis. Tn. R. Sunnier (Ed.), Monitor-.

Standards of Attainment in Schools. Slough, England: NFER

t

. Publishing CO., 1977.Q.

Kelly, 4. Aft study of executive behavior.by actiAty sampling.' HuMan.

_Rae ons, 1964, 17, 277-287. .

.

04Kay; R. A study -of perceived organizitiorm&characteristics in persis-,

ten disagreement school districts and nonpersiSteni disagreement dis-..

' 'triCts.in tie" San FranciscoBay Area.. (Doctoral diAsertati6, University. /,

.

4 No.-of Southern CalifOnia) Ann Arbor: University Mictpfilms,

14-2L,"483. ;

,KirchhOff.B. Organizational effectiveness measurement and policy

search. "Aqademy- of ManagementtevieW1 July, 1977, 347=355.

t

1

49. 1,) .

4

School EffectiAness

130

Klein, S. P.' The_ uses and limitations of standardized `tests in meeting thes,

demands for accountabtlity. ,UCLA Evaluation Comment, Center for the Study

of Evaluatians, .2(4) 1971.....-..

Klitgaar,R..R.` Going beynd moan in educational-evaluation. Public Policy;..,,

1975, 23, 59-79.. , .

,.

- .

Kraemer', W. C. Individual and ecoldgteal correlatiod in a general context.ic' '1'.'

. . 4 C' 9411%,1. 14

Behavioral.Science,,4978, 22, 67=72. -494

Kiresuk, I. & Sherman, R. 'Goal attainment's4alingi A general method for44

ipr vialuating community mental health programs. Community Mental. Health,

4968, 4, 443-453. .

Ladb!iceiir, J. School management profile and capAiry for change. (Udpub-

lished doctoral dissertation, University of Toronto,. 1973): .

o - .

bandy F. ,6 Parr, ,T.- Performande. rating. Psychological_Bulletin, 1980;

,.

- .:

'87,

72 -107.

Langland, .Unpublished study, 1974. In R. Likert,,The profile of a,...

.

- school. Ann Arbor; Mich.: Rensis LikertAssotiate"1978%'.

Lieber, H. Is M80 appropriatein the academic' setting? 'Educational Leader-9 : 0, 9 . I 0

0,jiht1;,1979, Varch,414-418. .,. ',',. -,. -.4,...... .

t . .

Latham; a. P. & Yuil, G. .A. A review of research on the 'apPlication of-°° , ..z.

,goal setting in-organizations. Academy of:Management Journal, 1975,

-18(4), 824-845.

-Lew h. -EducarbmilProduCtion FunctiOnso, ,Avaiiable fram NIE, 19777.

Lawrence, P. R. & Lorsch, J. W. Organization and enviranmedt: Elpewood,

Richard U. Irvin, 1969.Aor

132

A


131

Lepkowski, Sr., M. L. Cooperative dedision making as related to supportive

'relations, and communication in the senior high school. (Doctoral disser-

tation, University of Buffalo) Ann Arbor: University Microfilms, 1970,

No. 70-22, 106.

Levin, Hi Concepts of economic efficiency and educational productiaa. In

Froomkin, J. et-al.'s Education As An Industry. Cambridge,tMA: Ballinger

., Publishing CO., 1976.-,

LevinLAA. Cost-effective analysis in evSluation resgarCh. In M. Guttentag

and 2. Struenissy (eds.). .Handbook of .Evsluation Rssearch; Beverly Hills:

Sage; 1975, 2.

Levine, D. M. & Bane, M. J. Introduction. In D. M. Levine & M. J. Bane

(Eds.), The ineoualiteicontroversy: Schooling and distributive justice.

Nee York: Basic Books, 1975.

Levinson, H.' Management by whose objectives? Harvard Business Review, 1970,4:046

48, 125-134.

Lewy,'A. Discrimination among individuals vs. discrimination among groups.

sqJournal of EdUcational-Maasurement, 1973, 10, 19-24..

Lieberman; M. 04olntrviewOffeccountability. Phi Delta Kappan, 1970, 52,

194-195. ..

Likeirt, R. The LikertsProfileOfa School, 2nd ed., Ann Arboy, Mich.:.

.

lanais Likert Afsociates, 1978. I,

Likert, R. Human Resource Accounting: Measuring Positional Replicement.

tCosts. Human Resource Management, 1973.

-4.kert,,,.,R. The Human Otganization:' Its Management and talue, New York:,

*401,-Hi11,1967.4°

133

ti

ScAool Effectiveness

132

Likert, R. New Patterns of Management. NI York: McGraw-Hill, 1961.

Loper, F. Accountability in education. Phi Delta Kappan, 1970, 52, 231-235.

Lortie, D. Thi balance of control and aitonomrin elementary school teaching.

In A. Etzioni (Ed.), The Semi-professions and Their Organization. New

York: Free Press, 1969.

Luthan;-P. How to apply O. Public:Personnel Management, 1976. -

Unpublished study, 1975. In R. Likert, Tile profile of a,MacKillican,

.school. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Rensis Likert AssoCiates, 1978

Macy; B. &irvia, A methodology for assessment of quality of work life,

and organizational effectiveness in behav ioral- economic, terms. *Adminis=

trative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21, 212-225.

Madaus, G. F., Airasian, P. W. & Kellaghan, T. School effectiveness: A

'reassessment of the evidence. New York: McGra4-Hill Book Co., 1980. ,

Madaus, G., Kellaghan, T., Rekow, E. & Ring, D, The sensitivity of measures

of school effectiveness. Harvard Educational Review, 1979, 49, 207-22 .

Mahoney, T. & Weitzel; W. Managerial Models of Organizational Effectiveness.

Administrative Science Quarterly, 1969, 1A.,:357-365.

_10 \

Malsam, M. -MO: One 'district's success story. American Schools and Uni-

versities, 1979;34-38.4

Mangum, G. L. Manpower policies for a democratic-society-national manpower

couhcil. Book RiViewitJournal'oeHumanResources, 1967, 21, 265-267.

Marco, G. L., Murphy, R. T..& Quirk, T. Arlassification of methods of using4

student data to assess school effectiveness. Journal ofEducational

Measurement, "1976., 13,243-252.

4

1 _0 4

. '


133

Marsh, 4; Management-by-objectives: A multifaceted faculty evaluation

model. Educational, TectinolOgy,' 1979, 19, 44-48.a,

Mayrhofer, A. Performance contracting for Instruction.' In Science and

Jantz, Accountability in American Education. Boston: Allyn-Bacon,

1972.

McClelland, D. Testing for competence rather than for "intelligetce".

America Psychologist, 1973, 28, 1-714.

McDonald,'F., A Design For An Accountability System For The New York City

A School System. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, New Jersey, 1972.

MCagan, P. Competency models. Training and Development Journal, 1980,

A

34, 22-26.r

McNeil, J. kftham, W. Thi assessment of teacher competence. In W.

Travers (Ed.) Second RandbOk of Research on,Teachint. Rand McNally:

A1973.

enburger, J. & Wilson, J. The performance contract in Gary. Phi Delta

Xampani 1971,152, 406-4i1.

Meeth, R. Quality Education for Less Money. San Fr9ncisco: Jossiy-Bass,

1974.

Behrens, W. A. & Ebel, R. L. Some comments on criterion-referenced an

norm-refirenced achievement tests. NCME Measurement in Education, 1979,

-10 No. 1.

-Hetfestel,N. & Michael,-W.- A paradigm for developing valid measurable objec-,

times in tte evaluation of.educational programs in colleges and universities.

EdUdationai and Piicholokical Measurement, 1967, 27, 373 -383.

a

o

,7

1.

School EffeCtiveness

-134

,... 4

Miller, D. R. Unpublished manuscript, 197/ 0,. In R. Likert, The profile V. :,.

.

.

..0,9 ia school. Ann Arboic Mch.: Rensis Likert Associates, Inc 1978.L,.

Hirvis, P. & Lawler, E. Miasurint'the finaicial impactf employee atti -'

Ludes. iournaP of Applied Psychology, 1977, 62, 1-8..

Hiskel, C., Fevurly, S. & Stuart,,R. Organizational structures and-processes,

perceived school effectiveness, loyalty, and job satisfaction. Educational

Administration Quarterly, 1979, 15, 07-118.4

c

Miskel, C. & Gerhardt, E. Perceived Bureaucracy and Teacher Conflict: Central

Life Interests; Voluntarism, and Job SatisfaCtion. Journal, of Educational

Administration, 1974, 10, 84-97.

Mohr, L. (Chairman). Administrative Structure, Effectiveness, and Efficiency."-

A Prospectus for Research in Organizational Aspects of.Education.prepared

for the National Institute of Education, 1975.

Mohr, L. The conce;10of organizational goal. American Political Science,

.Review, 1973, 77(2), 470-481.

Moral', H. H. The relationship between perceived participation in school

--' management and morale of selected black and nonblack teachers and students

, in Volusia county,,Florida senior high schools. (Doctoral dissertation,

University of Miami) AparAsbor: Univerditi Microfilms 1974, No. 74-23,

485.. , .

,Morgenstern, O. On the Accuracy ot Economic Observations. Princeton, NJ:

PrinCeton 11iverpiti Press, 1963. :,

I .

Mott, P. The Characteristics of Effective Organizations. New York: Harper

&Am 1972.

:01

$

.r

ei

t

Murphy, M., Bishop, L., George, Se defining organixationil properties of

schools:. A focus on structure. PaPer presented at the Annual Meeting


135

of. the American Educational Research Association, Washington, D.C.,

1975..

Nash,-4.1,-Commitmeni to competency: The new fetishism in teacher education.,

.

Phi Delta rappan, 1970, 52, 240-243.

.Nation.'s Schools. Performance contracting: Clouds

Texarkana. Nation's Schools, 1970, 86, 85-88..

and controversy over

Naumann-Etienne, M. Bringing about open education: Strategies for innova=

Lion and.implementation. (Doctoral dissertation, TheoUniversity of

ifichigan)-AnnArbot: University Microfilms, 1975, No. 75-20, '417.

Nirenbergi J. A Comparison of the Management Systems of Traditional and

'Alternative Public High Schools, Educational Administration Quarterly,',.

1977, 13, 86-104. o

4 -

Nunnally,1.0w

J. Psychometric ThedV. New York: Mi4sw-Hill; 19,78..

,Doetoia, OrganizationS1 Structure and Student Alitnaiion. Educational

Administration,Quarter17, 1972,'8,X5-26.

Odiorne, G. ManagementBy-Oblectivei... San Prancisco: Pitman Publishing.

'Corp., .1965.

OLDonOghtie, M. Economic dimensions i educatiOn. Dublin: Gill and Mac-

.millan, 1911.

Clubany, A. Observation methodology of supervisory behavior.4 .

Personnel Psycholoin, 1959, 12,',85-96.

O'Neill, J. Resource Use in Higher

tier York: McGraw4i11, 1971:

5'

Education: Trends in Outputs and Inputs.


'136

Parsons, T. Structures and process in modern societies. Glencoe, IL:

The Free Press, 1960.

Parsons, T. 'Suggestions for a sociologiCal approach to the theory of or-

ganizations. mfirfillstrative Science Quarterly, 1956,'1, 63-85. .

Paul, S. An application of cost-benefit analysis[to management education,

in 'W. Niskanen et,a1., Benefit-Cost and Policy Analysis. Chicago:

Aldine, 1973, 374-392.

Pellegrin, It: Schools as work settings. In R. Dubin Handbook of Work,

Organization, and Society. Chicago: Rand-McNally, 1976, 343-376.

Pellegrin, R. Some organizational characteristics of multi-unit schools.,

Working Paper No. 22. Madison: Wisconsin Research and Development

Center, University of Wisconsin, 1968.

1Pellegrin, R. The place of research in planned change. In R. Carlson et

al. Change Process& Iluthe Public Schools. Eugene, Oregon: Center

for the Advanced Study of Educational Administration, Univ. of Oregon,

1965.

Pennings, J. Dimensions of organizational influit& and their effectiveness

correlates. AdministrativeScience Quarterly,,I976, 21, 688-699.

Pennings, J. The relevance of the Structural- Contingency Model for organi-'/1

'national effectiveness. 'Administrative Science Quarterly, 1975, 20,

- 0393-410. . 's

Perrow, C. Complex Orgaaizationse A Ciltical Essay. Glenview, IL: Scott,

Foresoman, 1972.

Perrot', C. Goals in complex organizations. -American Sociological Review,

1961, 6, 854-865.- .

4

,4111001,1,


137

Pfeffer, J. Usefulnes of the concept. In P. SsIrGoodman and J. M. Pennings

(Ede.) New er ect ves on organizational effectiveness. 'San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass, 1977.

yopbam, W. Educational aluation. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:' Prentice-Hall,

1975.

. I

S.

,--:Popham, W. J. Criterion-Ref enced Instruction. California: Fear=

1

Publishers, 1970.

Posavac, E. & Carey, R. Program Evaluation: Methods and Case Studies.

Englewood Cliffs: Prentice-Hall, 1980.

-110"%Price, J. The study of organizational effectiveness, Sociological Quarterly,..

1972, 13,3:15.,

Radnor, M. (Chairman)., Administration and management in educational organi-

zations. Discusdion of Issues aid Proposal for a Reiearch.Program for the

National Institute of Education prepared, at a Workshop, Watsonville, Calif.,

1974.

-Ratsoy, E. Participative and Hierarchical Management of Schools: Some

Emerging Generalizations. Journal of Educational Administration, 1973,

11(2), 161-17d. .

^

Reiman, B. 0rganizati,pal effectiveness and management's public v Ues:

A canonical analysis. Academy of Management Review, 1975, 18(2),,224-241.

... 'Rich, A. The Enterprise and Its Environment. London:. ,Tawistoek,.1963.,

. 4i. :student' Riedel J. E. A4. comparison of princtioalt tea4her ond n perceptions of

'. selectecelaientarysEidirialncipale' effectiveness: (Doctoral disser-

tation, Universityof Southern California) Ann Arbor: University Micro-

films, 1974, No. 74-21 504:

a

.School Effectiveness

138

Rivlin, A. Systematic Thinking For Social Action. Washington, PLC..: The

Brookings institution,:1971.

..1

'ROberts, K. H., Hulin, C. L., & Rousseau,.D.,M. Developing an interdisei--

plinary seiedee of oiginizations.° San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978..

1!"

.

Robinson, J. The dbservation reporit:a help or a nuisance? NASSP ulletin,

62(416) , 22-26.

Robinson, W.- Ecological sorrelations'and the behavior of individuals.

American Sociological Review, 1950, 15, 351-357.

Rosenshine, B. the Stability of.Teacher Effect' Upon Sttdent Achievement,

Rdvieki of Educational Research, 1970, 40(54647-662..Iona

Rosenshine, B. & Furst, JS Cumrent'and future research on teacher per-. ,

formance criteria. rn;13.1.7. Smith (Ed.) Research on .Teacher Education:

,A Symposium. Englewood 1971.Prentice-Hall, 1971

Rossano, M. A'ttudy of Management by Objectives as Perceived and Practiced

Junior College Administrators. Unpublished doctoral dissertalt

University of Texas at Austin, 1975.

Rossi, P., Freeman, A., & Wright, S. Evaluation: A Systematic Ap roach

Beverly Hills: Saga,Publications,

Schein,4. Orgiiiiitational.Psychology. Eaglemood Cliffs; NJ: Preniiee-.

6P Hall, 195k .s.

'Schmidt, F. L, Hunter, J..E., & Urry, V.11. Statistical'pOwfr in:exiterion-

related validity stuaiee. JonrniV. of Applitd Pliology, 1976,'61,,

...473-485. .

A

140

a1

'fie

Sot., Kra.-

.Schneider, B. Work

\cliaates: An interactionist perspecfive. Paper pre-

s


139.

Seated at the Third Annual Symposium on Applied Behaviorarfcience,

Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State university, May, 1980.

Schneider, B: Different levels of analysis in data aggregation: 'Problems,4

pitfalls, and a potential solution for sqzvey research. taper igssented

,at the Annuli' Meeting of the American Psychological Association, 1978.

Striven, M. The methodology of evaluation. In R. Tyler, R. Gagne, and

LiM. Scriven (ads.), Perspectives in Curri um Evaluation. Chicagb:

stand McNally, 1967.

Scott, C. Some remarks 04 "student ratings". Validation. American Educa-

-"--tibiair-RgiiiiiaXiiiitlif7-1P-5, 12(4) , 444-447.

t

VS-#+ ++4.r. #1020..#--

Selynick,t. TVA. and the-grass roots. Berkeley: University of California,

1953. .

.-.' ,

. :.

Shavelsoi, R. & Russo, N.. Generalizability of Mkasures.of Teacher Effeg-

tiVeness, Educational Research, 1975, 19(3).

Shepard, L. Standard setting issues and methods. Applied Psychological

. Measurement, 1.980, 4, 447-467.

Shetty, Y. & Carlisle, R. Application of management-by-objectives in a1 ,

,

university setting: An exploratory study in faculty reactions. Educes-..

tiara' Administration quarterly, 1974, 10,, 65-81s.

Shetty, Y. & Carlisle, IL Organizational correlates of a management-by-_

objectiveaprogram. Academy of Management Journal, 1974, 17, 155-160:

Silbetman, O. 'Crisis in the Classroom: The Remaking of American bducation.%

N614: York::, Random 'Rouse, 1970.

;

t s.


140

Mlallrialge, R. J. 'A study of relationships etween the perceived managemfnt

systemi of elementary schools andthe personal needs satisfaction of

teachers. (Doctoral dissertatiofi4-George Peabody. College for Teachers)

Anti Arbor: University 1Microfilms, 1972, No. 72-25, 404.

Smith, J. B. An Iniestigadion of Management *by-Wectives in Units of

Selected igher Educational, Institutions. Unpublished doctoral disser-.

tation, Rutgers University, 1975.

tSmith';°11. C. The' relationship between the participative management style of

elementary school ptincipsleas perceived by their teacher/and the 'level

of teacher morale. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of

Southern California, 1975)

Smith, P. & Kendall, L. Retranslation of, expectations: An approach to the

construction of unambiguous anchors for rating scales. Jlirnal of Applied._

Psychology,, 1963, 47, 149-155..

Snow, R. E. Representative and quasi- representative designs for researchc.,

a

on teaching. Revie6 of Educational Research, 1974, 444 265-292.

Soar, R. & Soar, R. Problems in,Usini Pupil Outcomes for Teacher Evalu-_

1.7.-

ation, in Standardized Testing Issues: Teachers' Perspective, N.E.A.,

ihshington, D.C.,1977, t2 -57.

Stanchfield, J. place tmstancLin literaEy or the principal can make 'a

d ifference. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 1976, 6(2), 22-23; 31.

Steers, B. Organizational Ei(ectiveness: .A Behavioral View. Pacific,

Palisades, Calif.: Goody *r, 1977.

"142

4

ix School Effettiveness

141

Steers, R. Methodological issues in evaluating organizational effectiveness.

Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psthological Assd=

ciation,Veshingtmi, D.C., 1976.

1Stewart, R. Managers and Their Jobs. London: Macmillan,. 1967.

Stone, F. 'Investment in Human Reqources.at AT&T.,Managpent Review, 1972,

'23-27.

Stow, S. & Sweeney, J. A comprehensive thrge year process for planning a

system of accountability can ensure discriminating and valid results.

Educational Leadership,, /981, .539-541;

Tebay, J. E. ;gaining that begins and ends with people. Management Review,

-- &V _

1973, 62, 47-51.

Thompson, J. P. & McEwen, W. J. Organizational goals and environment.,

American Sociological' Review; 1958, 23, 23-30.

Tamassini, L. ,Assessing the Impact of Human - Resource Accounting: An Ex-. ,f

,

perimentel Study in Managerial Decision Preferences. Acd4ivatitog Review,1,0

1977.,

4.Vanzandt, C. The effects of MBO accountability 4n guidance.programs in

aine. Unpublished manuscript, 1,77.

Wagstoff, L. H. :Theeiationship between administrative systems and inter----c ,

personal needs of teachers, (Doctoral dissertation, Vniversityof Oklahoma)

'IQ Arbor: University Microfilms, 1970, No. 7p-2343. .

4

a.

ae.. ' ,

. Watson, J. lads as raters: Can they evaluate? Instructor, 1974, 83(8), 37..

Weeks, 'ftpublished.study1-1978., In R. Likert,The profile of a school:

Ann Arbor, Mich.: Benslis Likert'Associates, 1978.

14'3

t

3. .a "

e r

-School Effectiveness

142

Weick, K. Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Adminis-

trative Science Quarterly, 1976, 21,.1-194.

4

Werts, C. & Linn, R. Considerations when making inferences within the .

analysis of covariance model:. Educational and Psychological Measurement,er

-, .-1974 31, 407-416.

.

' Williams, R., A Description -of Same' Executive Abilities by Means of Critical

Incident Technique. Unpublished doctoral* 4issertation, Columbia Univer-

IP*

Wolfe, B. A dost-effective analysis of reduction in ddhool expenditures:-

An application of an educational production function. Journal of Educe,-

tionai Finance, 1977, 2, 407-418.

.Yee, A. (Ed.)- Perspectives on Management Systems Approaches in Education:

A Syipbsium. Englewood Cliffs:, EduCationat Tech. Publications, 1973.

' Yuchtlaan;.E. & Seashore, S. E. A system resource afliroadhto organizational

effectiveness. 4:administrative Science Quarterly, 1967, 32, 377-395.

vol

O

I

144

S2

640.1t.

O


143

A

Footnote .

.4..I .3

1The authors gratefully acknowledge the assistance of the foiloWing .

individuals: ,Bruce EtringerRick tort,'D4 Jim B;oitun , and Meta. Lowe

for contributions to various portions of this project. We would partial--

larly like to thank Dr. M.-truce Mackenzie-Haslam for his patience and

I.

guidance throughout this ptoject.

*.

A..

0

O

e

.4

C

145

,MODEL

Rational--Goal

THEORETICALREFERENCE

Etzioni(1964); Per-row (1961)

4

table 1 .

Applicability of Goal - Oriented Models to School Effectiveness'

FOCUS0.

Effectiveness )de-

fined by achieve-.meet of prescribedgoals.

EDUCATIONALEXAMPLE

Blaschke.

(1972);-

Gramlich &Koshel(1975)

OUTCOMESPROBLEMS WHEN FEATURES APPLICABLE

'APPLIED TO EDUCATION TO EDUCATION

Pupii,gain scoreon: standardizednorm-referencedachievement andability tests; cri-terion- referenced

tests; curriculum -based tests.

(eglects conflicting 'Formation of dominantgoals of multiple con- coalitions to concil-stituencies; little late confliCts; goalsevidence to support can be set or non-performance contract- cognitive ctors as'ing. . well.

Management- Druckerby -Objec (1954)tives

Effectiveness meas-ured by attain- e'

ment of specificgoals.

Altergott(1970) ;

Eads (1974);Shetty

.Carligre(1974)

......

Pupil gain score Focuses measurementon: standaridized .on. more easily quan-norm7referenced tifiable objectives;achievement and not esgily tied inability tests.; cri-6ith individuale-

.

liteterioe-r nced wards.tests; c

based tests.. .

Limited app cationsto education h ve -

been pos,itive.

Functionsl Parsons(1960)

no\

i

Do organizationalneeds serve clientgroups?

c

4106s" 6.4?

Hanuahek

(1977)

-Cost-

Benefit

,Pupil gain scoreon: standardizednorm-refetencedachievement andability tests; cri-erion-referencedtestsreurriculum-based testa; rat-ingS of behavior.-

Little empirical sup- Considers conflictifigport "to justify "pat.-"client" groupsintern maintenance" goal attainienlinfunctions toward goalattainment, unidirectionality o'f in

fruence on client .

groups,; goal measure-ment.

' O.' ' / ' .-,..?' s2'. 0,V '.- 3 *" ' P ' d . ., 0,

Rivlin,:,' ; Af qiencY the , Wolfe Pure'cost measures= Measuringeefficiency; Aid in fiscal deci-.

(197.1) '' defit'iiri4riable.A' ,S197711 - expenditure per effects onsnon-mess- sion-making; relative".",i ,Paul (1973) pupil; WorkloadIt ' l ured factors; com--,, . program evaluation.

. le ..0e1, ;., ° ', 1 . measures-number ,of posiie criterion meas-/

146

a i . .1

r ' yr.,

4, . ,.. &.-,,,-0,7.-2 ,4

%:,. 0- - .

°

:. i ' ' ,_ ,,,,,

.

41. ''' °"4" 1 e' '''" t ..k-,

',, ,

#rteachers)per pupil; urement.

-

'Physical standards-studentO per.class-room; gain

scores-training,

Pupil

, turnover, costs.1 "

I 147

in

MODELTHEORETICALREFERENCE

Table 2

Applicability of Systems- Models to.School EffectiVeneda

FOCUS

Systems-Resource

Kati & KahnA. (1978);

Yuchtman &Seashore(1967)

EDUCATIONAL

EXAMPLE,

Effectiveness stud-ied in terms-of

efficiency or ex-ploitation.

OUTCOMES

Levin(1976);

Klitgaard(1975); Fin -

char (1972)

Output /Input ra-

tio (-efficiency);number of grad-

uates; percent ofunemployed, grad-

uates; ability tocompete for val-ued resources.

PROBLEMS WHENAPPLIED TO EDUCATION

Identifying antic:mapp-able standard of

efficiency.

FEATURES APPLICABLETO EDUCATION

Consideration ofoutput measures incontext of supra-

Functional- PenningsStructures (1975)

Effectiveness afunction of tech-nological struc-tural interac-tions.

Mohr (1973); Formalization;Grayson -bureaucratic(1972) structure; climate;

leader behavior;motivational

e

, forces.

Concern with oygani-zatianal securityand,ContiaUity ofpolicy; profitabil-ity most common cri-terion.

Relationship consid-ered between)teacher

evaluative structuresand output measures.

40

Managerial Reiman`Process (1975);.

Effectiveness conL-,

sidered in context'-of - managerial func-Cyert &

44arch.(1963) tions, abilities,and behaviors."

Barro(1970);-

Dyer. (1970)

Iree (1973)

Teacher loyaltyand morale; teach-

; er eatisfaction.'

Little empirical 'up-port for r a onships bet en m na-"gerial beha or andoutput variab RP

Methodologies pro-posed to study school

administrator behavior;.managerial dimensionsidentified that maybe applicable.

Organize- Beckhard.tional De- (1969);velopment French

(19721; Ben-: *nis (1969)

Effectiveness as-sumed given certain

organizational har-eateristics (e g.,

upward communica-tion, participationin decision- making).

Radnor Teacher satisfac-(1974); Di- Lion; reactiveCaprio qpestionnaire. 411

(1974)

Effectiveness notmeasured in terms ofschool output meas-ures such as achieve-ment df non- conitiyevariables.

Relationship between"healthys! system andteacher and studentoutput measures makesgood, conceptual sense.

Likert-ISR Likert (1q67) Effectiveness Austinsumed given high (1979)participative man-'agemeUt style.

' Teacher.satifffac- .Effectivenesstypical-System 4 managementLion; student & ly not measured with proven effective in

'teacher morale;' "hard" criteria. 'other service-oriented,labor relations;_, non-profit organiza-i

,]Wpions; also limitedsupport in, education.,

intraorganizationalCommunication & trusts;

atudenperformance(rare)

SOURCE SAMPLE

."Gibson.(1974) Sixth grade boys

Key (1914)

A'

Table 3

Research With the LikertT.ISR Model of Effectiveness

4 school districts. .

*

pos FORM .FELAtED TO-

Teachers, principals Achievement test'scores

Boaid members; Super- Labor relationsintendents; Adminis-trative members;principals; teachers

'REbATIONSHIP FouNp*

. .

'Higher achievement test scores.

Teachers & Staff less likely tohave "persistent disagreements".

Bayne; (1972) 410 school sYsteme yard members; Super- Teacher strikes.

intendents;'Adminis-trative staff; princi-pals; teachers,

Less likely to strike (teachers).

BernhardtA(1972).

979 teachers, 0"%- Teacher Teacher militancy Less teacher militancy.

=

1I

0Millei6(1970). 82) principals

329 teachers1099 studentsS.

.4..

Ftincipals,students

. .

teachers, Motivation; Attitudes,& commitment to in-stitution; Frustra--tiOn; Confidence &rust, Communication

4

P.*

-Higher motivation of students .

& teachers,.

-.More favorable attitudeti &greater commitmentc .

-.Less frustration"of teachers &students.

'Greater confidence & trust amongpersons in the school..Better communitation in alldirections.

'-,Byrnes (1973) Teachers.in sevenhigh schools

Teacher', Job satisfaction -Greater job satisfaction.

* The-closer to System 4ae compered 'to System

150P4

15i,

9

rISOURCE

Wagstaff(1970)

SAMPLE

Table 3, (continued)

1'OS FORM RELATED TO

High school teachers&principils

94

,Teacher & principal

O

Interpersonal needsof teachers

3.

RELATIONSHIP FQUND*

Defter teacher sense Of (needsatisfaction.

Smallridge

0972)250 elementary

. teachersTeacher Need satisfaction Greater need satisfaction.

Cart (1971) 94 high ,school Principalprincipals

Satisfaction Greater satisfaction with theirsupervision, co-workers, work,pay & promotion.

Cullers, Hughes , Studentsan six&,1.1Gretil (1973) .1h 'schools

Principal & teacher Student satisfactioh ,, Greater student satisfaction.

' Morall (1974). 106 H.S. teachers g leacher & student%, 120 H.S. studenti,

.

Teacher & stumorale

o.wwwww°O

Higher morale of students anateachers.

411k

Smith (197) 17' principals254 teachers

Principal

A

Teacher morale, meas-ured by the Purdue'Teacher Opinionnaire

Lepkoiiski(1970)'

,

'High scixiol.teachers

i

Teacher Communication-.

Riede(1974)-

V

elementary salmi .

, teacliers.& principals*Teacher .EValuators':judgMent

of'principala

'Naumann-Etienne,(1975) "1 ,

:0

4 elementary schools "Open education" &ttaditional schools

Iff

.

:152a

Higher teacher morale. ,

, °°Better communications in all

.directiOns within the school.

Principals evaluated higherwere closer to System 4 schools.

,

Open schools, closer to System4.'

15a,

.1

SOURCE'

Ladouceur(1973)

A

SAMPLE

523 teachers

Table 3 (continued)

/ ' POS FORM RELATED TO.

Teacher

.RELATIONSHIP FOUND*

Schools capacity to. change

Closer to System 4, the morecapable the'school was ofchanging.

1Donlan (1978) 18 schools t Teacher-

6th grade students91110

%

..

School Achievemen1greater

the PEP score im-Scores N.Y. Stat provement.Pupil Evaluati ...,.

/Program (PEP),

4

Ltngiand (078) 613 teachers.

4Teacher Conflict,'grievance Less conflict-in negotiating

rates contracts4 ho relationshipwith grieVAncerates.

MacRillican(1975)

469AC-6 teachers. ,leacher.

Use of. open educa-r .tion

Weeks (1970 , 1403. principals and Teacher.teachers in 33'schools

Higher the openneis of theclassroom.

Organizational t11.-' Mate; pleasured by

the Profile'af Con-flict' Characteristics

9

Closer teachers sa theprincipal's .

conflict managemeici and Whavior.. .

!

foreman (1973) 14 principals, 8 vice' FrincipalOrteachers, Educational per-princihals, 206 students formanceteachers, 912 students

;

No Significant correlation betweenPOS scores and educational per-formance.

Fieeman, Martin 2056 teachers, princi Teacher, principal, ' Satisfaction && Roney (1980) pals & office staff Ctral'Office.Staff militancy 4

Higher System,4 == greater satis-faction =.less militancy forgrOups. /

caleri (1970). 37 Superintendents Supe'rintendent,44 Secondary.princi- principal'

-pals; 78 Elementary'154 ,-. principals

Position in hierar- Superintendents perceive themselveschy as lawSyStem 4; Principals perceive

themselves ashigh System 3, ofelementary principals closer toSystem 4. -155

NU-053-363933-1 ' - ERIC

Documents

Transcript of NU-053-363933-1 ' - ERIC